Exemption Notification for Coated Goods Denied Where Assessee's Own Classification Showed Plastic Coating

Goods described by the assessee in its classification list as glass fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish could not later be treated as outside that description to claim exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The notification applied only to goods listed in the Schedule and excluded goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. On the assessee's own description of the goods, the exemption was unavailable. The distinction between resins and plastics was not necessary to decide because the classification entry itself was sufficient to deny the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86 dated 10.02.1986 for goods claimed to be coated with resins and not with plastics, and therefore exempt from duty.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only to goods described in the Schedule, while excluding goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. The appellants themselves had described their goods in the classification list as glass fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. On that basis, they could not later contend, for the purpose of claiming exemption, that the goods were not coated with plastics. The question whether resins were different from plastics was unnecessary to decide, because the appellants' own classification was sufficient to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the denial of exemption was correct.

---