Cce, Kolkata-ii Vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....rate of duty in respect of epoxide resin classifiable under heading 3907.30 and polyester resin falling under 3907.91 or the benefit would not be available to the mixture of resin or resin added within different additions would be chargeable to higher rate of duty in terms of notfn.no.14/92.2. after hearing both the sides duly represented by shri asutosh law, ld.adv. and shri p.k.pal, ld.adv. we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the respondents by the tribunal's decision in the case of cce, meerut v. asian paints ltd.- 1999(114)elt 972(t). the bench observed that inasmuch as there is no dispute about the classification of the product in question falling under heading 3907, the benefit of notfn.no.133/86 cannot be denied to the assessee......

Judgment:
1. The only dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of notfn.no.133/86-CE dt.1.3.86 which grants concessional rate of duty in respect of Epoxide Resin classifiable under heading 3907.30 and Polyester Resin falling under 3907.91 or the benefit would not be available to the mixture of resin or resin added within different additions would be chargeable to higher rate of duty in terms of notfn.

no.14/92.

2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Asutosh Law, ld.adv. and Shri P.K.Pal, ld.adv. we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the respondents by the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Asian Paints Ltd.- 1999(114)ELT 972(T). The Bench observed that inasmuch as there is no dispute about the classification of the product in question falling under heading 3907, the benefit of notfn.no.133/86 cannot be denied to the assessee. Identical is the position before us. The Revenue is not contesting the classification of the goods in question as falling under heading 3907.30 as Epoxide Resin. The only contention of the Revenue in their memo of appeal is that the benefit of notfn.no.133/86-CE should be available to the Epoxide Resin or Polyester Resin in its primary form and not to the mixures of resins with any other product. Inasmuch as the issue is already covered in favour of the respondents by the above referred decision of the Tribunal, after hearing both the sides we do not find any reasons to take a different view. We also note that the said decision of the Tribunal was followed by this Bench in a subsequent case of appeal by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dt.7.7.97 passes in favour of M/s. Jenson & Nicholson. This Bench vide its order no.A-828/Cal/2000 dt.27.6.2000 rejected the Revenue's appeal by following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Paints.

3. Accordingly by following the ratio of the decision we do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same. Cross objection filed by the respondents are also disposed of.