1. The assessees claim for benefit of concessional rate of duty at 20% ad valorem in terms of S. No. 6 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 to Polyethylene Terephthlate (PET) classified under CET sub-heading 3907.60 has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that PET is not specifically mentioned against Sl. No. 6 which covers 'Polyacetals, resins, Polybutylene, Terephthlate, Polycarbonates and Polyester'. As a result of denial of benefit, a duty demand of Rs. 5,47,170/- has been raised for the period during 26-12-1994 to 15-3-1995. It is the contention of the appellants that PET is a 'species' of 'genus' polyester resin and therefore, when polyester resins have been specifically included in Sl. No. 6 of the Table to the notification, the benefit thereunder is available to PET.2. We have heard both the sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has indirectly agreed that PET is a polyester resin by holding that the contention of the appellants that polyester chips are polyester resins, may be correct. The appellants have also substantiated their claim that PET is a polyester resin within the definition given to it in Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Page 934). Polyester resin is defined as any group of synthetic resins which are polycondensation products of dicarboxylic acids with dihydroxy alcohols. The appellants have explained that PET is a polycondensation product obtained by catalyzed ester exchange between di-methyl terephthlate (di-carboxilic acid) and ethylene glycol (di-hydroxy alcohol. This factual averment is not rebutted by the Revenue. Further the HSN Explanatory note 5(c) under Heading 39.07 also recognises PET as a polyester.
3. From the above, it is abundantly clear that PET is a polyester resin. That being so, applying the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in [1992 (62) E.L.T. 323] wherein the benefit of exemption in terms of Sl.
No. (iv) of Notification 36/83, dated 1-3-1983 was extended to polyester chips imported by the appellants on the ground that they were covered by the entry 'polyester resins' even though the notification as amended, deleted the entry against Sl. No. 3 in the table annexed to the Notification before amendment so as to exclude polyester chips from the scope of entry against Sl. No. 3, we hold that PET is eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 20% ad valorem under Sl.
No. 6 of the table annexed to Notification 15/94, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.