SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
V.K. Agrawal, MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Pune -Appellant
Versus
Lunar Caustic (P.) Ltd. -Respondent
Final Order No. 693/98-C Appeal No. E/2771/93-C, 693 of 1998, 2771 of 1993
Decided On : 13-08-1998

Advocates Appeared:
Satnam Singh,Gopal Prasad

ORDER

Per V.K. Agrawal :

The Revenue has come in appeal against the order dated 30.8.93 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the product Winall Glue is classifiable under heading 35.06 and not under sub heading 3905.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the products, namely, Sensitizer Winall, Sensitizer (G&W) and stencil remover are not dutiable.

2. We heard Shri Satnam Singh, Ld. S.D.R. and Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Advocate. We have considered their submissions in respect of each products and the decision is as under:

3.1. In respect of product Winall glue, Commissioner (Appeals) has classified it under heading 35.06 since the said heading expressly covers prepared glue, it is more specific to heading 3905.20 as a polymers of vinyl. The Ld. S.D.R. submitted that the impugned product is a solution of Poly vinyl Alcohol (PVA) and is used as a prepared adhesive in sugar and paper industry; that the product coating solution which is also a solution of Poly Vinyl Alcohol has been classified by the Collector (Appeals) under sub heading 3905.20; that the product "Winall Glue" is not much different from "Coating solution" and should be classified under heading 3905.20. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submitted that coating solution is also a glue and is classifiable only under Heading 35.06. However, as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, he cannot challenge the classification of "coating solution" as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also relied upon the decision in the case of Nevichem Synthetic Industries Vs. C.C.E. 1984 (17) ELT 460 (T) in which the Tribunal held that the adhesive prepared by mechanical mixing of Polyvinyl acetate dispersions with water solution of imported Polyvinyl alcohol would be classifiable under item 68 and Not. 15-A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff observing that according to explanatory notes to the Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature (CCN) preparations specially formulated for use as glues were not classified in chapter 39 but under chapter 35 in Heading 35.06 ("prepared Glues not elsewhere specified or induced....").

3.2. We find that it is not disputed by the Revenue that "Winall glue" is a glue and the heading 35.06 applies to prepared glues and according to Rule 3 (a) of the rules for the interpretation of the schedule, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. Further, according to explanatory note of HSN below Heading 35.06 it clearly provides that "Preparations specifically formulated for use as adhesive, consisting either of a mixture of several plastics falling individually in different headings of chapter 39 or of plastics which, apart from any permitted additions to the product of Chapter 39, (fillers, plasticisers, solvents, pigments, etc), contain other added substance not falling in that chapter (e.g. waxes)". We also observe from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) classified "Coating solution" under heading 3905.20 as he observed that the appellants had not claimed the product to be glue. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and hold that "winall glue" is classifiable under heading 35.06 of the Central Excise Tariff.

4. Products Sensitizer Winall and Sensitizer (G&W). The Commissioner (Appeals) has hold both these products not to be dutiable since these products were obtained by mere diluting Ammonium Bichromate and the adjudicating authority had not brought out any new chemical properties or interaction undergone by the products. The Ld. S.D.R. submitted that by adding water to Ammonium Bichromate, two products were coming into existence; that by changing the concentration of water two distinct products having distinct names were being produced which showed that a chemical reaction was taking place; that addition of water does not necessarily mean dilution; that the chemical

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top