1.This is a revision application filed by the appellants before the Central Government which is now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section (2) of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the "Aqueous solution of Phenol Formaldehyde", called as "Novastik", manufactured by the appellants would fall under tariff item No. 15A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or not. The Appellate Collector had held that the said product, even if it is in the form of aqueous solution, would be covered by tariff item No. 15A as that item includes artificial or synthetic resins in any form. Aggrieved by this order the appellants are before us.
3. On behalf of the appellants, Shri J.J. Bhatt, the learned advocate, contended that prior to 1-3-1982, the words "solutions and dispersions of synthetic resins" did not appear in the tariff item 15A as it stood at that time. Further, he submitted that the product manufactured by the appellants contained solid or resin content only up to 45% and is not a finished synthetic resin as is known in commerce, trade or scientific terms. He stated that it is only an intermediary product normally generated during the process of manufacture of synthetic resins by the conventional processes. He clarified that the appellants do not have even the equipments to manufacture phenol formaldehyde from the aqueous solution by following an elaborate process. In this connection, he has brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition No. 750/1972 (The Indian Plastics and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India), 1981 E.L.T.108 (Del.), wherein it has been observed that as the aqueous solution contained not more than 45% of solids it cannot be regarded as artificial or synthetic resin in liquid form, and as such it has been further observed that it was not covered by tariff entry 15A. Shri Bhatt concluded his arguments by stating that the said judgment had already clinched the issue and as such he need not further argue the matter.
4. Mrs. Vijay Zutshi, on behalf of the respondent, stated that in view of the aforesaid judgment, she has nothing to say in the matter.
5. For the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment, we hold that the aqueous solution manufactured by the appellants which contained less than 45% of the solid resin did not fall