ADVANCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CUS., AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Poly Glycol -2000 under 5 Bills of Entry. All the five consignments of Poly Glycol P -2000 were brought under bond and were re -warehoused in the Public Bonded Warehouse, Shah Alam, Ahmedabad. Pending chemical test of samples, the imported goods were cleared provisionally on payment of duty as under :

(2.) THE chemical test result dt. 16 -11 -88 and 21 -2 -89 by Chemical Examiner, Central Excise, Vadodara was as under : The term Poly Glycol is general term which includes both Polyethylene Glycol and Poly Propylene Glycol. However, in the technical literature, Polyethylene Glycol and Poly Glycol are described as synonymous. Physical chemical properties of Polypropylene Glycol and Polyethylene Glycol are so much overlapping that it is possible to distinguish between the two only by sophisticated instrumental analysis for which the laboratory has no facilities.

(3.) THE samples were, therefore, tested by CRCL, New Delhi. The test result dt. 13 -3 -89 informed that the sample is Polyxypropylene Glycol, a polyether. It is other than Polypropylene. Accordingly, less charge demand notice dt. 2 -3 -90 for Rs. 14,12,682/ - and interest Rs. 30,615/ - was issued in respect of Ex -bond B/Es appearing at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 above which was adjudicated vide order -in -original No. 32/90 dt. 25 -7 -90 and the demand confirmed with interest. Appeal filed by the appellant against this OIO was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 347/92(237 -Ahd)CE/Collr(A)Ahd, dt. 12 -5 -92. The appellant, thereafter, filed appeal before CEGAT against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), which was decided vide Order No. 309/97 -C, dt. 20 -10 -92. The CEGAT remanded the cases to original adjudicating authority to consider the issue afresh and to deal with the plea for alternate classification under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Commissioner re -adjudicated the case in de novo proceedings and again confirmed the demand of duty with interest as above. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 275/2001(45 -CCP)Cus/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt. 22 -5 -01, confirmed the above order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant contested the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the CESTAT and the Tribunal vide Order No. A/46/WZB/Abad/ 2007, dt. 10 -1 -07 remitted the case to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with the following directions : Now what remains to be seen is the claim of the appellant that their product should be treated as under Chapter No.3812. This merits acceptance. In view of the above, the original authority is directed to re -quantify the duty involved adopting the classification under Chapter 3812.