2000(08)LCX0006

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)

M.M. RUBBER COMPANY LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

Final Order No. 1120/2000, dated 16-8-2000 in Appeal No. E/SB/1313/90

Advocated By :   None, for the Appellants.

Shri S. Sudarsan, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from OIA No. 204/90 (M), dated 28-6-1990 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the AC’s order classifying the appellants’ product viz ‘Biaxilly Oriented Polypropylene Films (BOPP), falling under Sub-Heading 3920.31 on the basis of test certificate dated 2-4-1982 obtained on the basis of samples drawn by the AC and tested at National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta. Appellants’ contention was that the item is not a rigid one but flexible falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 3920.32. They relied on a letter dated 2-12-1981 addressed to them by the Director General, National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta. However, the Commissioner noted that the said letter is not a test result or a report based on any representative sample drawn from the product under consideration and hence held the said letter to be not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. The Commissioner also applied Chapter Note 12 for the purpose of upholding the classification in the matter.

2. Appellants are not present despite notices served on them on several occasions. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for consideration on merits.

3. Ld. DR, Shri S. Sudarsan points out that there is no merit in the appeal. He submits that the authorities have passed the order based on the test results and there is no reason to take a different view in the matter in view of evidence on record. He points out that the appellants have requested for the tribunal to examine the product and come to the conclusion which cannot be done in the light of the test result available on record. He points out that all other grounds taken in appeal are not sustainable and they are only relying on certain text book definition on ‘plastics’ which is not material for consideration of the case. In view of test results clinching the issue hence he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. On careful consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the orders and the grounds taken, we are totally satisfied that in the present case, the classification has been arrived at only after AC having drawn the sample and having obtained a test result from the National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta. Same has not been contested before the authorities and the Commissioner has clearly noted in his order that test report has not been challenged.

5. In that view of the matter, all other submissions made in the grounds of appeal which are theoretical cannot be accepted in the matter. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and hence same is rejected.

_______

Equivalent 2001 (130) ELT 0687 (Tri. - Chennai)