TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing No.3909 to 3915 of Central Excise Tariff Act fall under negative list and are not eligible for the said notification. On the basis of investigation, the Revenue entertained a doubt about misuse of the said area based exemption by the appellant in as much as they are also manufacturing various resins namely, Melamine Formaldehyde Resin (MFR) and Phenolic Formaldehyde Resin (PFR), which are further used in the manufacture of various Laminated Boards. The said resins appeared to be classifiable under Chapter heading 3909 specified in the negative list and hence liable to duty. An investigation was launched by the Central Excise Intelligence and 4 show cause notices were issued covering the period from June, 2009 to February, 2013. The matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Shirdi Industries Ltd. vs. CCE-2017-TIOL-2338-CESTAT-All and Board Circular No.47/90 dated 31.8.1990, in which the classification of ploy vinyl Acetate was decided, and Circular No.93/36/87-CX.3 dated 11.8.1987. He also argued that MF/PF resins are not marketable and hence not excisable. Ld. Advocate further relied on the Office Memorandum dated 1.6.2012 issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers clarifying that prepared adhesives/glues based on PF, UF and MF fall under Chapter 3506. 3. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 4. Heard the parties and examined the records. 5. We find that the investigation by DGCEI in the present case, is based on the statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the manufacturer M/s Akolite Synthetic Resins, Mangalore, the learned Commissioner have erred in observing that in view of this license granted to them by BIS who are manufacturers and sellers of various resins in the market. Accordingly, the resins manufactured by the appellant are also marketable. We also find that the learned Commissioner have erred in observing that as similar goods have been advertised on the website by various manufacturers, then market must exist there. As the goods have been advertised then they are capable of being bought and sold. We find that learned Commissioner have erred in holding that the appellant's goods are also capable of being bought and sold without any chemical composition comparison alongwith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apter 39. Admittedly, the glue in question is curried glue to which hardener and other substances are added and therefore, glue manufactured by the appellant is not covered by clause 1 to note 6 of Chapter 39, such glue being not in the form of block, lump or powder. We further find that the preceding decision of this Tribunal in the case of Balaji Action Vilwell vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 367 (Tri. Delhi) = 2016-TIOL-36-CESTAT-DEL is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. Similar issue was considered by this Tribunal and after considering the scope of heading 3909 with Chapter Note 06 to Chapter 39 and HSN, it have been held that glue is not in primary form and therefore not classifiable under Heading 39.0....