9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed was paid by the appellants vide Bill of Entry cash No. 4856, dated 28-9-1977. On 3-2-1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act alleging that duty amounting to Rs. 14,525.29 p. was short-levied on the goods since they were liable to be charged to additional (countervailing) duty of customs at the rate of 33% ad valorem corresponding to the Central Excise duty leviable under Item No. 17 (2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET). After considering the submissions of the appellants, the Assistant Collector of Customs confirmed the demand. On appeal, the Appellate Collector held that having regard to the fact that the essential character of the subject goods which were comprised of a sheet of paper laminated with polyester film was derived from the paper component, the correct classification of the composite goods was as paper under Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule applying Interpretation Rule 3(b). He further held that the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule was Item No. 17(2) for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs. The Appellate Collector, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2465 (Cegat) = 1983 ECR 1762-D. In these decisions the Tribunal has held that E Class Press Pahn Paper is correctly classifiable under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Item No. 68 CET. 6. Opposing the appeal, Shri Sundar Rajan, Departmental Representative, submitted that for a long time there was no dispute regarding the correct classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Schedule since the rate of duty under Chapter 39 or Chapter 48 was the same. It was only on issue of Notification No. 37/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978, exempting electrical grade paper falling under Chapter No. 48 from basic duty in excess of 75% ad valorem, that the issue of the correct classification assumed significance. The rule of interpretation 3(c) was amended on 1-9-1978 and from then onwards the Customs House resorted to Rule 3(b) instead of 3(c) and started classifying the subject goods under Heading No. 39.01/06 and thus the benefit of the exemption notification was not extended to the goods. The Wash Udyog case (supra) classified similar goods under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and Item No. 68 of the CET. In the Sunrise Electri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (ECR C 267 (SC) = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 382) where the Court held that quasi-judicial authorities cannot be controlled by any such rulings, advices or instructions of any authority, however high they may be in the administrative heirarchy. The Court further observed that when assessing authorities and appellate authorities are called upon to decide disputes arising under the Act (Customs Act), they must act independently and impartially. This is precisely what the Appellate Collector has done in the present case. We have, therefore, to arrive at the classification of the subject goods without reference to either of the Tariff Advices based on the merits of the dispute. 10. In the Sunrise Electric Corporation case -1983 (14) E.L.T. 2465 (Cegat = 1983 ECR 1762-D, Special Bench D of this Tribunal had to decide the classification of E class electrical grade insulating paper comprised of paper and plastic material. The goods in the present case are similar. The Bench held that the plastic component was functionally more important than the paper component and, applying interpretation Rule 3(b), it classified the goods under Heading N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods were paper and must be assessed as paper. 14. This decision does not, in our opinion, have any relevance to the present case. In the Yash Udyog case, the Bench concluded, after considering the material before it, that the high degree of insulation in E Class material (as in the present case) came only from the plastic film portion of the goods even though impregnated press-pahn paper or board, by itself, was also an insulating material. The essential character was derived from the plastic portion and the goods being composite material, Item 68 was more apt than 15A or 17, CET. 15. In the Bhor Industries case -1984 (18) E.L.T. 472 (Tribunal) = 1980 ECR 1800 (supra), the goods were PVC plastic coated paper. The discussion centred round whether such paper was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 68/76-C.E. The classification of the coated paper was not the theme of the discussion. We do not think that this Order has any relevance to the present case. 16. In the Basant Pran Electric Co. case -1984 (17) E.L.T. 499, the goods were electric insulating varnished paper, manufactured by varnishing kraft paper with insulating varnish. The period of dispute was 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
