2002 (7) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  Both appeals involve a common issue namely, classification of a product described by the appellants herein as phenol formaldehyde resins and claiming classification under CET sub-heading 3909.51 but held by the department to be 'Other Phenolic Resins' falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 3909.59. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d DR. 4. We find that the basis of the department's case is the test report dated June, 1990 of the Dy. Chief Chemist and the Chief Chemist's report dated 28-5-1992. The report of the Dy. Chief Chemist is that the sample is "phenolic resin in the form of lumps". It does not state anywhere that the sample is not phenol formaldehyde resin. The Chief Chemist's report says that the samples are m....