1999 (10) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Iyer for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke, for the revenue on the stay applications, it appeared that the main appeals themselves could be disposed of at this stage. This was done, after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the amount of duty involved of Rs. 2,66,055.93. The appellants filed classification list indicating manufacture of organic surface active agents and preparations thereof. For the preparations such as emulsifiers, wetting out agents, they sought benefit of entry at Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 101/66-C.E. as amended which exempted such emulsifiers etc. from payment of duty provided the surface active agents used in the manufacture of such preparations were duty paid. The sample of the product was drawn. The Dy. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned show cause notices. The assessee in their reply dated 10-2-1992 has argued that the Emulsifier/Wetting out Agent are nothing but Surface Active Preparation. The test report is silent on this aspect. The assessee further argued that they are using 'duty paid sodium lauryl sulphate' for manufacture of 'Galaxy LS-786'. From the Deputy Chief Chemist's report as well as Chief Chemist's report, it is reported that 'Galaxy LS-786' is a Surface Active Agent. It is not denied that the product is Emulsifier/Wetting out agent. Moreover, the assessee has furnished affidavit from their customers about the end use of the product. Their user viz. M/s. Halogen Petrochem and M/s. Nagesh Homeo Pharmacy, both manufacturers of textile Auxiliaries and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order resulting in the present appeals being filed before us. 6. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before us the grievance made was that the full text of the Chemist's opinion in both the cases was not given to the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not state their case clearly. In reply to the specific question, Shri Babu Iyer stated that the assessees had not sought for an independent examination of the same sample by any other agency. 7. We have considered the various submissions made and have seen the structure of the Tariff Entry, the wording of the notification and the explanatory note under HSN on which the present dispute is based. The HSN explanatory note shows t....