TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uently, the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has confirmed the Customs duty demand and imposed equal penalty on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant are engaged inter alia, in the coating of pipes for use in petroleum operations and also for transportation of water. The appellant is regularly import High Density Polyethylene in the form of granules and conforming to IS 7328:1992. The imported HDPE is used for the purposes of coating of pipes. The HDPE contains 2% carbon black. Carbon black acts as a filler and UV protector to the coating. The case of the department is that since the imported HDPE is compound, containing carbon black, the goods being HDPE compound is not eligible for exemption Notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the present case does not remain in dispute in view of the following judgments passed by this Tribunal:- (a) Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited vs. CC, Kandla - 2013 (291) ELT 369 (Tri. Ahmd.) "8. After hearing both the parties in great details, we find that the ld. Commissioner has taken a view that adding a carbon black results in chemically modifying the HDPE. It is not the case of the appellant that addition of carbon black does not result in any chemical modification. The carbon black is added for the purpose of colour and strength. The appellant also submits that only chemically modified polymers are different and otherwise, they are to be treated as HDPE. Further, they also submitted that the test certificate given by the suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the product imported by the appellant has been chemically modified or it is not known as HDPE in the market, the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 477 has to be extended to the appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant." (b) PSL Limited vs. CC - 2013 (9) TMI 548 CESTAT-MUMBAI. "6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The appellants imported Black Compounded High Density Polyethylene and claimed classification under subheading 39012000 at the rate of BCD at 5% in terms of Notification NO. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.3.2002. The department accepted the classification. However, denied the benefit of Notification on the ground that the notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, 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 from the government laboratory, which was essential in this case. Whether the product is a chemically modified HOPE or not and whether it is known as HDPE in the market, has not been considered at all. In the absence of test conducted by the Government controlled laboratory, if the test report of the supplier is relied upon, it has to be fully considered. The Revenue has not applied even after the trade parlance test. 9. At this stage, it may be worthwhile to note that in the case....