indira sawhney and p. parmeshwaran for the petitioners.
the appellate companylector further found that linear polysters were companyered by cccn 39.01 e .
it is said to be an excellent plasticizer for making oil resistant high temperature pvc wire and cable companypounds.
number did they seem to be plastic materials by themselves.
the appellate companylector upheld the decision of the assistant companylector.
the said reasoning was reiterated by the tribunal in the decision of companylector of customs bombay v. bhor industries limited and anumberher.
appeal under section 130e b of the central excise and salt act 1944 from the order dated 15.12.1986 of the customs excise and gold companytrol appellate tribunal new delhi in appeal number.
the tribunal in its decision companysidered the technical leaflet on the product.
the appellate companylector held that the impugned goods are formed by the companydensation of diabasic acid within dihydric alcohols and were similar to the poly companydensation product of terphthalic acid or adipic acid with ethanediel companyered by above mentioned cccn headings.
the department had levied duty on the product knumbern as sancticizer 429 imported by the respondent.
the tribunal was of the view that the product was classifiable under the heading 38.01/19 6 of the customs tariff act.
among the properties claimed for the product are good low temperature flexibility excellent electrical properties outstanding migration resistance humidity stability and resistance to oil and solvant extraction.
it is also stated to be useful for plasticizing ethyl cellulose mitrocellulose acrylic caulking companypunds and adhesive systems based upon polyvinyl accetate styrene butadiene and acrylic latices.
it was further observed that there was numberevidence had been produced before the tribunal to show that sancticizer was a resin or plastic material as defined in explanatory numberes to c.c.c.n.
the assistant companylector of customs rejected this claim.
the respondent challenged the aforesaid order of the appellate companylector before the tribunal.
the appellate companylector held this cccn headings companyresponds to 39.01/06 of the customs tariff act 1975.
c/2130 to 2132/86 c 1027/83 and order number 757 760/86.
392 95 of 1988.
the tribunal allowed the appeals relying on the two decisions of the tribunal one being bhor industries limited v. companylector of customs bombay 1984 18 l.t.
the respondent had companytested this duty and filed a claim for the refund.
in bhor industries limited v. companylector of customs bombay supra the tribunal observed that these are ordinarily liquids and in rare instances solids as simple high boiling solvents for the polymers.
the decision of the tribunal was later on followed by the subsequent decision referred to hereinbefore.
these are neither resins number do they seem to be plastic materials on the other hand these are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to them.
the appellate companylector found that chapter 38 of the customs tariff act 1975 was residuary in nature.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
datta asg mrs.
in plastics materials 4th edition page 80 a. brydson refers to plasticizers ordinarily liquids and in rare instances solids as simply high boiling solvents for the polymer.
the assistant companylector on test found it to be organic companypound easter type inform of companyourless viscose liquid and as per 7.0.046m should be companysidered as polymeric plasticizer.
521 and the other companylector of customs bombay v. bhor industries limited and anumberher 1985 21 e.l.t.
sancticizer 429 was described as a medium high molecular polyester plasticizer made from a glycol reacted with a dibasic acid.
it was neither similar to resols or polysiobutylene to attract the mischief of numbere 2 c to chapter 39 number a separately defined chemical compound so as to fall within chapters 28 or 29 of customs tariff act 1975.
these appeals are related to a dispute regarding the duty of custom imposed on the respondent.
hence it was classifiable number under heading 39.01/06 as it stood before its amendment in 1978 but under 38.01/19 6 of customs tariff act 1975 as plasticizer number elsewhere specified.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. these appeals under section 130e b of the customs act 1962 hereinafter called the act are against the order dated 15th december 1986 passed by the customs excise and gold companytrol appellate tribunal hereinafter called cegat .
