https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47253 Classification of the goods under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. depended on their composition, manufacturing process and commercial parlance. On the evidence, the products were treated as acrylic polymer resin in primary form rather than resin emulsions, so they fell under Serial No. 42 and not Serial No. 9. The challenge based on natural justice also failed because the Deputy Chief Chemist's report was not relied upon in the adjudication order; the authority could seek expert assistance, and non-supply of that report caused no prejudice or breach of Rule 56. The exemption claim was therefore rejected and the departmental classification upheld. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47253 Classification of the goods under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. depended on their composition, manufacturing process and commercial parlance. On the evidence, the products were treated as acrylic polymer resin in primary form rather than resin emulsions, so they fell under Serial No. 42 and not Serial No. 9. The challenge based on natural justice also failed because the Deputy Chief Chemist's report was not relied upon in the adjudication order; the authority could seek expert assistance, and non-supply of that report caused no prejudice or breach of Rule 56. The exemption claim was therefore rejected and the departmental classification upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47253