2001 (4) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers. The benefit of this notification was taken by the respondent M/s Indofin Chemical Co. The benefit was permitted on their filing of the classification list and due approval thereof by the jurisdictional authorities after obtaining the opinion of the departmental chemical authorities. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted of the eligibility of the following products to the benefit of the notification: (i)Primal P6N, (ii)Primal Binder B-18 ; and (iii)Indofin FI 36. The contention made was that these goods were not emulsions but were solutions. The samples were drawn and the Chemical Examiner opined that the products were "aqueous solution" of acrylic polymers, synthetic resin based on acrylic monomers and a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... white thick liquid". The Commissioner observed that the two Chemical Experts had presented before him substantial technical literature bringing out that the contested products were in fact emulsions. He also records two another opinions of the departmental chemical authorities dated 26.11.1981 in which the products T6N was held to be an emulsion. He expressed surprise that the same product at a later stage was described as a solution by the same authorities. He referred to a fact-finding exercise undertaken by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, in which he had reported the products were in emulsion form. He also examined the report by the Chemical Examiner dated 30.7.1992 and analysed it and the various details given thereunder. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned goods were in fact emulsions, that the assessees had not suppressed any facts from the department, and that the allegations made in the Show Cause Notices did not sustain. On his dropping the proceedings, the present appeal has been filed by the revenue. 5. In the appeal memorandum, it has been stated that the test reports obtained had shown that the goods were solutions and not emulsions. It appears that the revenue have not taken in to account the very detailed analysis made by the Commissioner in the impugned order and the reasoning given by him in rejecting the opinion given by the departmental chemical authorities that the goods were solutions. He has termed the opinion as cryptic. He has also relied upon the judgement of the T....