Civil Appeal No 1538 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 8986 of the High Court of Bombay in Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in CRA No 10086
YS Dharmadhikari Dr NM Ghatate and SV Deshpande for the Petitioners
SS Khanduja YP Dhingra and BK Saluja for the Respondents
Not Present
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
In this case notice had been issued indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage
The respondents have not appeared
Special leave granted and the appeal is disposed as hereunder
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench was right in rejecting the revision application summarily when the learned Civil Judge had held that the award was wrongly presented in his Court and he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity of the award
The facts are that there was a reference to an arbitrator
The award was filed in the Civil Court at Nagpur and objection was filed against the said award
The short question upon which the learned District Judge dismissed the application was that Nagpur was not the Court which had jurisdiction to entertain application
He held in his order inter alia as follows Most of the parties to the agreement of reference are the residents of Warora in the District of Chandrapur
On the careful scrutiny of agreement of reference the place of execution of the said agreement seems to have been omitted
I am quite unable to understand as to how the glaring mistake in respect of omission of place of execution of the agreement has been committed
It seems that the place of 687 execution of the agreement is deliberately omitted with intend to file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur as the arbitrator is the resident of Nagpur
For his convenience to file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur the place of execution of the agreement seems to have been omitted
Moreover it appears that the agreement for reference appears to have been prepared and drafted at Nagpur as stamp paper was purchased at Nagpur
It does not mean that the parties executed agreement for reference at Nagpur as the most of the parties are the residents of Warora and most of the property except the house on plot No 94 at Shiwaji Nagar Nagpur is situated at Warora in Chandrapur District
An adverse inference can be drawn that the agreement of reference was executed at Warora in Chandrapur District which comes within the local jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Senior Division Chandrapur
 The learned Civil Judge held that the award passed by the arbitrator ought to have been filed in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division Chandrapur
The learned Civil Judge held that only a bit of property situated at Nagpur and the residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local jurisdiction to the Court at Nagpur
He accordingly dismissed the application with the order that award be returned for presentation to the proper Court having legal jurisdiction
We are of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was in error in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure in holding as he did
In view of the facts mentioned undoubtedly part of the dispute which was the subject matter of dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court
This view is further corroborated by the Section 2c of the 
The Court at Nagpur had undoubtedly part of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit
The High Court had summarily rejected the revision application against the said order of the learned Civil Judge
The High Court in our opinion also was in error in not entertaining the application and in not setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge
In the premises and in the facts of this we are of the opinion that the High Court and the learned Civil Judge were in error
Their orders are therefore set aside
688 The appeal is allowed
Let the learned Civil Judge proceed with the objection to the award filed in his Court at Nagpur
The said objection may be disposed of as quickly as possible
There will be no order as to costs
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondents who imported Sancticizer 429  contested the levy of duty by the Department and filed a claim for refund which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that on ted the product was found to be organic compound easter type of colourless viscose liquid and as per 70046 should be considered a polymeric plasticizer
On appeal the Appellate Collector came to the conclusion that Chapter 38 of the was residuary in nature and that if the item was not covered by any other Chapter of the Tariff Act only then it would fall under the said Chapter
He also found that linear polysters were covered by CCCN 3901E and that the goods in question are formed by the condensation of diabasic acid within dihydric alcohols and were similar to the polycondensation products of terphthalic acid or adipic acid with ethanediel covered by the aforesaid CCCN headings which corresponds to 390106 of the 
The Appellate Collector upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector
The respondent appealed to the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeals taking the view that plasticizers were not resins but are added to resins to impart better flexibility of plastic properties to the latter that Sancticizer 429  is admittedly a plasticizer and would therefore not have fallen for classification under Heading No 390106 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as it stood before amendment in 1978 and that the product was classifiable 642 under heading 3801196 of the Tariff Act
Dismissing the Appeals of the Revenue this Court  HELD 1
As per various technical authorities plasticizers are not resins
These are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to them
These are not plastic materials by themselves either
644H 2
The goods under reference in the instant case are not similar to resols or polysiobutylenes
Their classification under Heading 390106 of the  prior to and even after its amendment in 1978 should not be applicable
Not being separately defined chemical compounds these would also not fall within Chapter 28 or 29 of the Act
Since these are not specified elsewhere their appropriate classification would be under Heading No 3801196 as Plasticizers not elsewhere specified
645C 3
In these matters how a good is known in the trade and treated in the trade literature is relevant and significant and often decisive factor
645D Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology 3rd Edition page 111 referred to
Bhor Industries Ltd vs Collector of Customs Bombay and Collector of Customs Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd and another approved