TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of HDPE and Polypropylene Monofilament falling under sub heading 5404.10 and 5607.49 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant did not get themselves registered with the Central Excise department for manufacture of the above said goods but were filing declaration regularly with the department under Rul 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No.13/92 (NT) dated 14.5.1992 as amended, wherein the exemption has been claimed form payment of duty being SSI in respect of twisted ropes under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and for mono-filament yarn, they were claiming exemption under Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.09.1996 as amended from time to time. As per notification No.8/96 ibid, mono-filament of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the cross examine of the chemical examiner was granted and fresh adjudication order was passed confirming the demand along with interest and imposing penalty terming the goods as plastic ropes. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the report of the chemical examiner cannot be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the case as initially the chemical examiner has given test report as: "The sample is a cut piece of green coloured 3 ply cord made of polyethylene plastic. Note: It is not possible to determine the specific gravity of the polymer on additive free basis, sealed remnant returned." Later on a query was made by the Assistant Commissioner to advice the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d PP. If the goods are found to be LDPE, then the Revenue has not investigated the matter from where the LDPE obtained by the appellant whereas the appellant has categorically stated that they have purchased/imported HDPE and PP. He further submits that the adjudicating authority without classifying the plastic ropes has demanded duty on plastic ropes. As the plastic rope is man-made fibres measuring more than 9000 deniers whereas the goods in question as per report having 339.5 decitex. It is his submission that 9000 deniers is equal to 10000 decitex as per HSN. He further submits that all the activities of the appellant were in the knowledge of the department at the time of issuance of initial show cause notice dated 25.9.1998. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... will be available in the analytical book of the chemist is not convincing. Moreover, in the second test report dated 14.3.2000 was never asked from the chemical examiner but it was sought advice to tell the name of laboratory where test can be conducted. Instead of providing such details, the chemical examiner has given his finding which initially denied. Therefore, it creates doubt on the veracity of the 2nd report given by the chemical examiner which is deemed to be influenced report. Moreover, during the course of cross examination, the chemical examiner never stated that they keep the sample in their records and on the basis of those samples, the 2nd report was submitted but in cross examination when specific query was made to him, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, there was statement of the appellant that they never purchased LDPE and purchased HDPE and PP and no evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue that the appellant has purchased LDPE. In the absence of evidence on record without bringing on record how the goods manufactured from LDPE, the demands are not sustainable. Issue No.3 10. It is seen that as per test report, deniers of the goods in question is 305.55 which is equal to 339.5 decitex. As per Section XI of Textile and Textile Articles, clause 12 (A) (b) states that man-made fibres (including yarn of two or more mono-filaments of Chapter 54), measuring more than 9000 deniers which is equal to 10000 decitex as per HSN. The adjudicating authority without any reasoning classi....