Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Anabond Ltd on 7 December, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/43/2004 & E/CO/70/04
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.483/2003 (P) dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pondicherry
Appellant/s
Versus
Anabond Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR Shri G.Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 07.12.2010 Date of decision : 07.12.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the claim of the assessees for classification of RVT Silicone Sealants under CET sub heading 3214.00 as fillers, and set aside the demand of differential duty of Rs.20,73,252/- confirmed as a result of classification of the goods as adhesives under Chapter 32 and set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessees.
2. We have heard both sides and find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon the Chemical Examiners report that the product silicon polymer sealant, having approx. 50 to 65 of fillers, does not have binding properties in order to classify it as an adhesive and that the product under reference may be considered as mastics based on plastics under Chapter Heading 32.14. We also note that subsequent to the period in dispute in the present appeal, which is July 2000 to February 2001, the department itself has been classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 32. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, uphold the same and reject the appeal.
3. The cross-objections being only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal, are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
3