1991 (4) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, deems goods as maleic resins under Notification No. 70/84. Expert evidence crucial.

BAKELITE HYLAM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, concluding that the goods in question qualified as maleic resins under Central Excise ... Adjudication - Classification of goods Issues:Classification of goods under Central Excise Notification No. 70/84 as maleic resins.Detailed Analysis:The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the classification of maleic resins under Central Excise Notification No. 70/84. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector extended the benefit of the notification to the appellants based on a classification list filed by them. However, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order, stating that a mandatory sample test was not conducted, and the goods did not qualify as maleic resins based on a Chemical Examiner's report obtained later. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the goods fell under the scope of Notification No. 70/84 as maleic resins.The primary contention raised by the appellants was that the goods fell under Item No. 15A(1), CET, and the dispute was limited to whether they qualified as maleic resins under the notification. The composition of the goods included maleic anhydride, polyhydric alcohol, and unsaturated hydrocarbon, with the presence of phthalic anhydride being objected to by the department. The appellants argued that phthalic anhydride, being an organic chemical and not a resin, did not disqualify the goods from being classified as maleic resins under the notification.The tribunal emphasized that the Chemical Examiner's role is to test goods for their characteristics and properties, not to determine classification or exemption eligibility. The appellants presented affidavits from experts stating that the goods were chemically modified maleic resins, which were not rebutted by the department with expert evidence or reference books. The experts explained that the presence of phthalic anhydride was for modification purposes and did not disqualify the goods from being considered maleic resins under the notification.In a detailed analysis, the tribunal referred to relevant case laws and expert opinions, concluding that the goods in question qualified as maleic resins under Notification No. 70/84. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief. The decision was based on the expert evidence presented by the appellants, which established that the goods met the definition of maleic resins under the notification.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and expert opinions considered by the tribunal in determining the classification of goods as maleic resins under Central Excise Notification No. 70/84.