1993 (1) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4/85 (Divnl 07/85) effective from 2-12-1985. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants, while filing their Classification List for the laminated decorative sheets, claimed their classification under Item 68 and stated, in a covering letter, dated 1-12-1985, the following in support of their claim : (a) The Supreme Court had decided in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Others [1985 (22) E.L.T. 3], that articles made of plastics means articles made wholly from plastics and not articles made from plastics along with other material. (b) Accordingly, their products laminates, which are not wholly manufactured out of material falling under Tariff Item 15A(1), would not fall under Tariff Item 15A(2). .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Item 68. Shri Rangwani also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Essel Packaging Ltd.[1990 (48) E.L.T. 463], in support of his plea that the subject goods should have been classified as articles of paper under Item 17 which were eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 63/82-C.E. dated 28th February, 1982. Shri Rangwani also referred to the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of his plea for classification under Item 17:- (a) Amit Polymers Composites Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyd. [1989 (39) E.L.T. 674] (b) Meghdoot Laminart Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [1990 (49) E.L.T. 75] (c) Uttam Laminates v. Collector of Central Excise [1991 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1983 (17) E.L.T. 1566). He also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, [1986 (24) E.L.T. 643] in which the classification of Prepreg P impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin was held to be under Item 17(2). On a question from the Bench that this ground could not have been taken by him at this stage without following the procedure prescribed under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, the learned Consultant admitted the mistake. 8. We have carefully considered the appeal and the submissions of both sides and have also perused the case records. We agree with the learned SDR that except the decision i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X