- (1.) The period relevant to this appeal is from 14/11/1968 to 30/1/1971. This period is covered by the Notification No. 156/65 dated 23/9/1965. By that notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the central government exempted artificial or synthetic resins specified in column 2 of the table falling under Item 15-A of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, as was in excess of the amount specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the said table. In the table, the resins specified were three, namely: (i) Alkyd Resins; (ii) Maleic Resins; and (iii) Phenolic Resins, and so far as the first variety is concerned, the amount mentioned in column 3 was nil, while in regard to the other two it was stated to be 80 paise per kilogram. The respondent was manufacturing synthetic resins termed "hindresat 2001, 2024, 3030, 4000" since quite some time. In 1964, these resins were brought under excise control and charged to duty. On the issuance of the Notification No. 156/65 dated 23/9/1965, these products were accorded full duty exemption on the declaration that they were "alkyd Resins". Samples were drawn on two occasions, viz. , 19-10-1965 and 14/11/1967, and on both the occasions, the Deputy Chief Chemist opined that they were "alkyd Resins". In 1968 during audit it was found that the respondent was advertising these products as Maleic Resins and thereupon samples were once again drawn on 25/8/1969 but the Deputy Chief Chemist reiterated that these products were "other than phthalic alkyds". However, the Chief Chemist, Delhi, whose opinion was sought expressed the view that the resins in question were "condensation products of polybasic acid and polyhydric alcohol". It was further opined on the basis of technical data supplied by the respondent that Alresat 201 C corresponding to Hindresat 2001 was a Maleic Resin and the rest were Fumaric Resins. On this opinion the tribunal held in favour of the Revenue on the first mentioned product, but against the Revenue on the other three products. The Revenue has, therefore, approached this court in appeal.
(2.) It is obvious from what we have stated above that the Deputy Chief Chemist had opined against the Revenue. The Chief Chemist, Delhi, opined in favour of the Revenue, only insofar as the first item was concerned, butnot in regard to the other three items. The entire case of the Revenue was, therefore, based on the fact that the respondent advertised its product as Maleic Resin. That by itself cannot be determinative of the character of the commodity. Reliance was also placed on the definition introduced in the subsequent Notification No. 122/71 dated 1/6/1971 which defined the expressions "alkyd Resins", "maleic Resins" and "phenolic Resins". The tribunal rightly did not place reliance on these definitions because they were not to be found in the previous notification which was the relevant notification for the period in question. In addition to the opinion of the chemists as aforesaid, the tribunal also relied on certain standard books and came to the conclusion that the relevant Notification No. 156/65 exempted Alkyd Resins from the payment of exercise duty, but prescribed a concessional rate of duty in respect of Maleic and Phenolic Resins. The tribunal also noticed that the disputed products were not being assessed as Maleic Resins even after 1973 (The definition of Maleic Resin was then amended). We are, therefore, of the opinion that except relying on the advertisement issued by the respondent, there was no material on record to support the contention canvassed before the tribunal and before us by the Revenue. We, therefore, do not see any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.;