TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority in the impugned order demanded differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,12,925/-. Further he ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants urged highly aggrieved over the impugned order, hence they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri Ajay Saxena, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. 4. Learned Advocate urged following points: (i) The appellant imported a number of consignments of Polyols and Isocyanates a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the show cause notice dated 22-3-1993 issued by the Commissioner of Customs in respect of imports made earlier to reject the various contentions raised by the appellants in the present reply to the show cause notice dated 10-2-2000. It is a settled law that each show cause notice is a separate and independent proceedings and the same cannot be relied upon in a subsequent proceeding. Further, the appellants were not put to notice that reliance will be placed on the earlier order passed on the subject. (vii) The imports took place in the present case during 1992-93. In the normal course, the end use certificates would have been filed and the bonds cancelled by the department. However, at this distant point of time, the appellants are una....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Industrial Research and obtained their opinion. According to the said institute, the impugned goods are thermoplastic polyurethane foam. The opinion of the institute is in accordance with Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary an the Handbook of Plastics and Elastomers edited by Charles A. Harper. (xi) According to the supplier of the imported goods M/s. Bayer, the polyurethane foam obtained by the appellants out of the polyol and isocyanate supplied by them result in thermoplastic polyurethane and not thermoset polyurethane. This clarification was given by them after testing the sample of polyurethane foam sent by the appellants to them. In view of the above, the entire basis made in the show cause notice fails. (xii) The opinion of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cross linkage the material is very rigid. He invited our attention to the Deputy Chief Chemist's report and urged that the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist should be given preference over the other test report submitted by the appellant. He relied on quiet a few decisions. He also stated that the test report submitted by the appellant are actually solicited and therefore no weightage should be given to them. He urged that the appellants had manufactured polyurethane foam of thermostate plastic and therefore are not entitled for benefit of the exemption notification. Since they do not fulfil the condition of the exemption notification, the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. 5. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any and also Shriram Institute for Industrial Research have certified that sample of goods manufactured by the appellant have character of thermoplastic polyurethane. The Standard Text Books also reveal that in reaction between polyols and isocyanates (which the appellant imported), Thermoplastic Polyurethane emerges. There is no reason for rejection of the technical opinion of M/s. Bayer and also Shriram Institute for Industrial Research which are based on the test report of the samples of the goods manufactured by the appellant. We reproduce below the opinion of Shriram Institute for Industrial Research on the sample of polyurethane foam manufactured by the appellant. "1. The plastics are broadly of two types, the thermoplastics and th....