Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
G.A. Brahma Deva, J.H. Joglekar, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -Appellant
Versus
Insotex (India) Ltd. -Respondent
Final Order No. E/9/98-D Misc. Order No. E/2/98-D Appeal No. E/2067/90-D CO No. E/294/90-D, E/9 of 1998, E/2 of 1998, E/2067 of 1990, E/294 of 1990
Decided On : 12-12-1997
R.S. Sangia
Per. J.H. Joglekar, Member :
The assessees in this case were manufacturing cotton fabrics coated with varnishes which were later cut into tapes for use in cable manufacturing Industries. These goods were earlier assessed under Heading 52.06. Assessees later claimed classification under Heading 59.09 which was approved by the Assistant Collector. The jurisdictional Collector caused an application under Section 35E (2) to be filed before the Collector (Appeals) claiming that since the process involved coating with 'Varnishes', the goods merited classification under Chapter 39. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order observed that the application did not support the contention that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 39. He observed that mere coating with varnishes did not convert an article into an article of plastic. On his rejecting the application, the present appeal from Revenue has been filed.
2. Shri R.S. Sangia, the learned JDR reiterated the department's belief that coating with varnishes would attract duty under heading 39.
3. The respondents requested decision on merits. In their submissions they advanced several grounds for dismissal of the application.
4. We have carefully considered the rival claims.
5. Varnishes and lacquers are liquid preparations for protecting or decorating surfaces. Such varnishes could be based on several substances. Such substances may not always be synthetic polymer based. In other words the varnishes can be made from the base of natural polymer also which could not be classified under Chapter heading 39. The department, apart from claiming that all varnishes are based on synthetic polymer had adduced, no further evidence either before the Collector or before us. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Collector's order and accordingly dismiss this appeal.
