TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court decision on excise duty exemption for synthetic resins</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY-III Versus CHOWGULE & CO. (HIND) PVT. LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY-III Versus CHOWGULE & CO. (HIND) PVT. LTD. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 518 (S.C.) Issues:Interpretation of excise duty exemption notification for synthetic resins; Determination of resin classification based on chemical composition and technical data; Reliance on chemists' opinions and standard books; Consideration of subsequent notification for defining resin types; Assessment of advertisement as determinative evidence.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the appeal concerning the excise duty exemption notification for synthetic resins. The notification exempted specified resins from excise duty, with varying rates for different resin types. The respondent had been manufacturing synthetic resins termed 'Hindresat' products, initially classified as Alkyd Resins under the exemption. However, a dispute arose when the respondent advertised the products as Maleic Resins, leading to a reevaluation of their classification.The case primarily revolved around the conflicting opinions of the Dy. Chief Chemist and the Chief Chemist, Delhi, regarding the classification of the resins. While the Dy. Chief Chemist supported the respondent's classification as Alkyd Resins, the Chief Chemist, Delhi, only concurred for one product, not the others. The Revenue's argument was based on the respondent's advertisement of the products as Maleic Resins, but the Court emphasized that such advertising alone was not determinative of the resin type.Additionally, the Court considered a subsequent notification introducing definitions for resin types, which was not applicable to the period in question. The Tribunal's decision, supported by standard books, highlighted that the disputed products were not being assessed as Maleic Resins even after subsequent amendments to the resin definitions. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial evidence, apart from the advertisement, to support the Revenue's claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of relying on substantive evidence, such as chemical composition and technical data, rather than mere advertisements, in determining the classification of synthetic resins for excise duty purposes. The Court's decision was guided by the specific terms of the relevant notification and the lack of conclusive proof to support the Revenue's position, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 