2007 (5) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e claim of the appellants that the same is classifiable under Chapter 48. Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the product is squarely classifiable under Heading 4811 which reads as under: "Paper and paperboard coated, impregnated or covered with plastic (excluding adhesives): 4811.31 Products consisting of sheets of paper or paper board impregnated, coated or covered with plastics (including thermoset resins or mixtures thereof or chemical formulations containing melamine, phenol, urea formaldehyde with or without curing agents or catalysts), compressed together in one or more operations. Products known commercially as decorative laminates. 4811.39 Other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the classified quoted (Polyethylene) is 0.015 mm. As such, according to the Test Report, the thickness of paper predominates and hence the cited chapter note would have no application and the product would remain under Chapter 48 and would get covered under Heading 48.11. 3. He also states that in a similar case of a competing manufacturer, manufacturing similar poly coated paper of similar chemical composition, the same Commissioner has passed an order on 19-2-2004 (present order was passed on 23-3-2004) holding the product of the other manufacturer viz. M/s. Creative products to be classifiable under Chapter 48 and not under Chapter 39. He further states that Special Bench of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 376/1994-C dated 15-12-1994 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te views within the space of merely one month. It is also equally surprising that both orders have been accepted at the level of the Chief Commissioner. It is also surprising that the logic adopted by the Adjudicating Commissioner ---------in favour of the Creative Polypack Ltd . (cited supra), has not been applied in the case of the present appellants. Keeping in view the chemical composition of the product and also taking into account that the thickness of the paper predominates over the thickness of the Polyethylene layer as is evident from the chemical test report, we are of the view that the chapter note cited above has no application in the present case and the impugned case cannot be taken out from the purview of the Chapter 48 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X