TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal denies appeal on product classification under Notification 220/77, emphasizing resin medium importance.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector, ruling that the product in question was not eligible for the exemption under Notification ... Paints and varnishes Issues: Classification of product for duty assessment and exemption under Notification 220/77.Issue 1: Classification of productThe appeal challenged the order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the Assistant Collector's decision regarding the classification of the product manufactured by the appellants. The appellants claimed their product, described as Polybutadiene Epoxy Electro Deposition Primer, fell under the exemption under Notification 220/77 for Epoxy based primers. The Department contended that the product was Polybutadiene Resin based, not eligible for the exemption, and assessable to duty at 15%. The dispute arose from the interpretation of the product's composition and manufacturing process as per the classification list filed by the appellants. The Chemical Examiner's report and technical authorities were referenced to determine the product's classification.Issue 2: Evidence and InterpretationThe Assistant Collector concluded that the product was not Epoxy based primer but Polybutadiene Resin based Electrocoat Primer, based on the Chemical Examiner's report and the order placed by a customer for Polybutadiene Resin based Primer. The appellants argued that the product was Epoxy based primer, citing the Chemical Examiner's report mentioning synthetic resin (Epoxy type) and the manufacturing process details. They also presented an amended purchase order from the customer mentioning Poly-butadiene/Epoxy based paint. The Department contended that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their product's eligibility for the exemption and relied on the Assistant Collector's reasoning for rejecting the evidence presented by the appellants.Issue 3: Legal Analysis and DecisionThe Tribunal analyzed the product's classification under Notification 220/77, which exempted Epoxy based primers and varnishes. The Chemical Examiner's report described the product as composed of synthetic resin (Epoxy type), mineral solvent, and inorganic pigment, without explicitly stating it was Epoxy based. The manufacturing process details provided by the appellants mentioned the use of Epoxy Resin but lacked clarity on the resin medium used. The Tribunal considered the significance of the resin medium in determining the product's base material. The amended purchase order from the customer and the remarks in the classification list mentioning various ingredients, including Epoxy Resins, were evaluated. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence proving the product was Epoxy based primer eligible for the exemption. The Assistant Collector's interpretation, supported by technical literature and customer orders, was deemed reasonable, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
