In 1964, these resins were brought under excise companytrol and charged to duty.
Chief Chemist opined that they were Alkyd Resins.
Chief Chemist reiterated that these products were other than phthalic alkyds.
It was further opined on the basis of technical data supplied by the respondent that Abreast 201C companyresponding to Hindresat 2001 was a Maleic Resin and the rest were Numeric Resins.
The Revenue has, therefore, approached this Court in appeal.
156/65, dated 23 9 1965, these products were accorded full duty exemption on the declaration that they were Alkyd Resins.
The respondent was manufacturing synthetic resins termed Hindresat 2001, 2024, 3030, 4000 since quite some time.
On the issuance of the Notification No.
By that numberification issued in exercise of powers companyferred by Sub rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted artificial or synthetic resins specified in companyumn 2 of the table falling under Item 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, as was in excess of the amount specified in the companyresponding entry in companyumn 3 of the said table.
Samples were drawn on two occasions, viz.,
The Chief Chemist, Delhi, opined in favour of the Revenue, only insofar as the first item was companycerned, but number in regard to the other three items.
It is obvious from what we have stated above that the Dy.
Chief Chemist had opined against the Revenue.
In 1968 during audit it was found that the respondent was advertising these products as Maleic Resins and thereupon samples were once again drawn on 25 8 1969 but the Dy.
However, the Chief Chemist, Delhi, whose opinion was sought expressed the view that the resins in question were companydensation products of poly basic acid and polyhydric alcohol.
On this opinion the Tribunal held in favour of the Revenue on the first mentioned product, but against the Revenue on the other three products.
M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., K.S. Paripoornan and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
In the table, the resins specified were three, namely i Alkyd Resins ii Maleic Resins and iii Phenolic Resins, and so far as the first variety is companycerned, the amount mentioned in companyumn 3 was nil, while in regard to the other two it was stated to be 80 paise per kilogram.
19 10 1965 and 14 11 1967, and on both the occasions, the Dy.
156/65 exempted Alkyd Resins from the payment of excise duty, but prescribed a companycessional rate of duty in respect of Maleic and Phenolic Resins.
The period relevant to this appeal is from 14 11 1968 to 30 1 1971.
This period is companyered by the Notification No.
156/65, dated 23 9 1965.
In addition to the opinion of the chemists as aforesaid, the Tribunal also relied on certain standard books and came to the companyclusion that the relevant Notification No.
