GORAMAL HARIRAM LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order -in -Appeal, the issue relates to the classification of cleaning powder manufactured by them. On 18.11.91, appellants truck containing 165 bags of 555 brand washing powder and 25 bags containing 555 brand cleaning powder collectively valued at Rs. 72,150 was seized by the Preventive officers of the Central Excise, Noida. Those goods were seized but handed over on supurdari to Pawan Kumar, Director of the appellants company. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing the classification of the cleaning powder manufactured by them under Chapter sub -heading 3402.90 of the CET. After getting the report of the Chemical Examiner, the adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under the above -said sub -heading and also the duty demand with penalty as detailed in the Order -in -Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.

(2.) THE learned Counsel has contended that the appellants are manufactured only Scouring Powder falling under chapter heading 34.05 (sub -heading 3405.40) without the aid of power and as such, was exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 222/77 -CE dated 15.7.77 and that the report of the Chemical Examiner also supported the version of the appellants, but the same has been wrongly interpreted. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

(3.) WE have heard both the sides. The cleaning powder, as we find, is classifiable under sub -heading 3402.90 under which the duty is payable by an assessee at the rate specified therein. The sample of the power seized from the premises of the appellants was sent to the Chemical examiner for examination who in his report opined that the sample was in the form of white powder composed of Calcium, Magnesium Sodim Carbonate together with Organic surface active agent. Percentage of water insoluble material was 90.2% and of Organic Surface Active Agent was less than 5% by weight. He however, further opined that the sample had the characteristics of scouring powder, but his these observations being not in consonance with the condition laid down in note 2 to Chapter 34, did not carry any value and no capital out of the same can be claimed by the appellants specially when the other ingredients found in the sample were of cleaning powder. Shri Pawan Kumar, Director of the appellants company in his statement had admitted that they were manufacturing cleaning powder. We also find that the appellants are marketing their powder as cleaning powder and even in their sale invoices, they had given the description of their product as cleaning powder. In the face of all these admitted facts, the lower authorities have rightly held that the powder being manufactured by the appellants during the period in question, 1991 -1992 was 'cleaning powder' classifying under sub -heading 3402.90 and not scouring powder. The duty demand consequently in respect of this powder has been correctly confirmed against the appellants. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.