TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew marketable product particularly when such mixture had never been bought and sold, nor could it be bought and sold being unstable and having a small shelf life as claimed by the appellant. 1.2 The appeal also involves determination of the question whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked when the department was in full knowledge of the factum of appellants' activity for manufacturing of the toys and also the activity of obtaining the said mixture termed as 'plastisol'. 1.3 Then also involves determination of a question whether the reports of Deputy Chief Chemist and Chief Chemist could be relied upon by the Commissioner, in light of the cross examination results before him that the said reports of the two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... though the demand was for the period 1-4-1992 to 30-11-1996. 2.3 A sample of plastisol was drawn by the department and sent to the Chemical Examination, whose report was supplied to the appellant on 11-9-1998. 2.4 Another Notice dated 4-7-1997 was issued demanding duty for the period December, 1996 to March 1997 and a Corrigendum was issued on 16-6-1998 which altered the basis of the demands. 2.5 Reply was sent to Notice dated 5-6-1997 and 4-7-1997 by a joint reply dated 20-11-1998 and bar of limitation was claimed. On merits, the plea was made that mere mixture of few duty paid raw materials result in a liquid paste and such a liquid paste cannot be called plastisol, as such liquid paste has extremely short shelf l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not granted. The Chief Chemist and Deputy Chief Chemist were cross examined and thereafter all the eight Show Cause Notices and demands therein were determined vide Order-in-Original dated 3-11-2004 issued on 6-12-2004 by holding the product plastisol as excisable having essential characteristics of a stable product plastisol and duty demands were confirmed for the period April 1992 to October 1999 along with penalties and interest. Hence the present appeal. 3.1 After hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, it is found and held : (a) The Show Cause Notices relied upon the report of Laxmi Narayan Institute of Technology. Nagpur and the correctness of the same was challenged and cross exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hnology Department of Chemical Technology, of Mumbai University's view should not be applied to determine capability of the product as regards shelf life and marketability? The orders failure to do so calls for not upholding the same. (c) There is force in die submission made before us that the Commissioner has arrived at the classification of the Plastisol under Heading 3904.22 when the Show Cause Notice had proposed it Under 3911.10. In doing so the Commissioner has traversed beyond the proposal in the Notice and such an order requires to be set aside on that ground itself. (d) The proposal in the Show Cause Notice was based on the report of Laxminarayan Institute of Technology and even that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without finding out and ascertaining as to what was the exact position in the mixture of the said product, as also the role of the viscosity depressant as were being claimed by the appellant have to be rejected. There is no 'viscosity depressant' not a finding therein. No test having been carried out also the evidence produced by the appellant as regards the essential presence of viscosity depressant & that to be the main factor to be rendering the goods a shelf life and consequent marketability, as rendered in the affidavit relied upon by the appellants as per the Reader of Polymer Technology of Mumbai University by these test reports of the Deputy Chief Chemist and the Chief Chemist. (f) There is force fou....