MONTEX GLASSFIBRE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD
2005-05-05
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short "cegat"), New Delhi dated 22-3-2000. ( 2 ) THE question is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification No. 52/86 dated 10-2-1986. This notification granted exemption from duty in respect of goods specified in the schedule thereto. Item 11 of the schedule reads as follows:thus, it is to be seen that any goods which had been impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish were not entitled to the benefit of notification. ( 3 ) AS the appellants had claimed benefit of the notification, they were issued show-cause notices. In reply they claimed that their goods were not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics and varnish. They claimed that their goods were coated with resins which were not plastic. They contended that resins are a different item from plastic and therefore they were entitled to the benefit of the notification. Their contention has not been accepted by any of the authorities including CEGAT. ( 4 ) BEFORE us it was also sought to be submitted that resins are different from plastic. In our view, it is not necessary to go into the question whether resins are different from plastics. The classification list filed by the appellants describes their own goods as under: ( 5 ) THUS, for the purposes of classification and for the purposes of falling under Tariff Item 7014, the appellants themselves have shown their goods to be impregnated, coated, covered and laminated with plastics or varnish. They cannot be allowed to now contend for the purposes of getting benefit of notification that their goods are not coated with plastic. According to their own classification, their goods are impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. It is thus clear that they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal was thus right in so holding. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.