1998 (7) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The twin issues are : 1. Classification of certain phenol formaldehyde resins manufactured by the appellants herein - according to the assessees, the product would fall for classification under CET 3909.51 and the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 133/86 would b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the disputed product is not a chemically modified phenol formaldehyde resin. Note 5 to Chapter 39 provides that "the chemically modified polymer i.e. those in which only appendages to the main polymer chains have been changed by chemical reaction are to be classified in the Heading appropriate to the unmodified polymer". However, in terms of Note 14 to Chapter 39 which states that "chemically mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were under the bona fide belief that their product was a variety of phenol formaldehyde resin classifiable under CET sub-heading 3909.51. They contend that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department in the face of approval of classification list and in the absence of any mis-statement or suppression or non-disclosure and they also submit that they had disclosed the vario....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....classification is not far to see - the appellants' intention is clear from their claim to the benefit of Notification 133/86 which prescribes rate of duty of 15% ad valorem (as against the tariff rate of 25%) which is available to only phenol formaldehyde falling under sub-heading 3909.51 and not to chemically modified variety classifiable under CETA 3909.59 which we have held to be the appropriat....