2013 (8) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it of concessional rate of duty of 5% available for High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) under Sr.No.477 of exemption Notification No.2/2002-Cus, dt.01.03.2002 as amended from time to time. 2. Revenue has taken a view that the product is not eligible for exemption under Sr.No.477 and aggrieved by this decision of the lower appellate authority, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Before we proceed further, it would be better to reproduce the relevant tariff heading which is as under:- Chapter 39 - Plastics and articles thereof 934 Tariff Item Description of goods   Unit   Rate of duty   Standard Preferential Areas   (1) (2)   (3)   (4) &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....purpose of discussion, that is not valid. 7. The appellants have produced the test certificate before the Customs authorities and according to the test certificate of the supplier, the density of the product was 962 kgs per cu.mtr, the product contained 2.2 % of carbon black and 0.5% of disp/carbon black. The ld. Commissioner took a view that according to the test certificate produced by the appellant themselves, the product is composed of substantial carbon content which is chemically added. Therefore, he took a view that the imported goods are chemically modified and is actually compounded HDPE. From the relevant Sr.No. extracted above of the exemption notification, according to the ld. Commissioner, only ordinary HDPE is covered a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her, they also submitted that the test certificate given by the supplier clearly indicate that the goods are not chemically modified HDPE. In our opinion, the lower authorities have not been fair. On the one hand, they relied upon the test certificate of the supplier to hold that addition of carbon black results in chemical modification, ignoring the specific statement of the supplier that there is no chemical modification. Having relied upon the test certificate for coming to one conclusion, the whole test certificate should have been taken into consideration. Moreover, no technical literature or opinion has been produced either by the appellant or by the Revenue in support of their case. The Revenue has not got even the test certificate f....