JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:— This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order passed and judgment delivered on 25th April, 1984/4th May, 1984 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The question involved is whether the crude PVC film is dutiable. The appellant is, inter alia, a manufacturer of crude PVC films for the purpose of use in final products such as leather cloth and laminated jute mattings and PVC tapes both insulation and adhesive.. The said crude PVC films are manufactured by the appellant in a continuous process in the factory premises of the appellant which are licensed premises under the Act. The appellant filed classification list No. XIV/75 dated 20th November, 1975 in respect of crude PVC films used for lamination with jute and for tapes claiming that the said PVC films were non-excisable on the ground that the same were non-marketable intermediate products used exclusively for captive consumption. The said classification was approved by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise on 9th December, 1977.

2. There was an order passed by the Appellate Collector on 14th June, 1974 holding that crude PVC films were not marketable and were not liable to excise duty. It is necessary to refer to the Tariff Entry involved in this case. Tariff Item 15-A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff reads as follows :

"Articles made of plastics, all sorts including tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible, including levy flat tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets, not otherwise specified."

The same crude PVC films which have been manufactured by the appellant and used in the manufacture of some other end product were subject-matter of adjudication by the concerned authorities in the period 1-3-1970 to 29-5-1971. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise in an order dated 14th January, 1974 held that the said PVC films manufactued by the appellant are not marketable intermediate products and hence not liable to duty. The Appellate Collector, Central Excise in his order noted the contentions of the appellant that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to prove that the crude PVC sheets which were the subject-matter of the Show Cause Notice in that case and which are also the subject-matter of the present show cause notice were not known as in the market as PVC sheets nor were these marketable PVC sheets. After reference to the rival contentions, the said Appellate Collector in his order held, inter alia, as follows :

"PVC films/sheets for the clearance of which demand letters are issued are not marketable as the same are neither embossed nor printed nor any finishing work is done when compared to PVC films/sheets which are marketed by them. It was further stated that the tensile strength of PVC sheet which is marketed by the appellants is as per the international standards laid down by A.S.T.N./I.S.I. and is much higher than the crude PVC sheets manufactured by them as an intermediate product for further manufacture of leather cloth. As such, it was contended that the product manufactured by the appellants is not liable to central excise duty. Shri Patel further stated that it was not necessary to prove from technical angle that the crude PVC sheets manufactured by the appellants for manufacturing leather cloth are different from PVC sheets which are manufactured by them and sold in the market as such Crude PVC sheets used in the appellants factory for further manufacture of leather cloth can be distinguished from PVC sheets which are marketed by them as such by naked eye. Moreover, all the processes which are required in case of PVC sheets which are marketed by the appellants so as to make these sheets marketable are not carried out in the case of crude PVC sheets which are used by the appe