JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:— These three appeals under S. 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 raise the same issue. They are therefore disposed of by a common order.

2. The respondent - M/s. K. Mohan & Co. - imported, from Japan, "metallised polyester films" under an import licence dated 14-6-1978. The goods were admittedly in the shape of film rolls several metres long. They were cleared on payment of customs duty leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 (CA) as well as the additional duty of customs (or countervailing duty) leviable under S. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA). Subsequently, the respondent firm made three applications for the refund of the amount of the additional duty of customs paid by it. The claim for refund was based on the terms of a notification of exemption issued under S. 25(l) of the CA. Under notification No. 228/76 dated 2-8-1976, an exemption from the customs duty payable under S. 3 of the CTA was granted in respect of "articles made of plastics, all sorts, but excluding those specified in the table annexed hereto and falling within Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)". The annexed table excepted the following items from the purview of the exemption:

"Tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible including tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets".

Notification No. 443 dated 29-11-76 omitted the words of notification No. 228 which have been underlined above but left the main notification otherwise untouched.

3. The assessees claim for refund was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the goods imported by the respondent were articles made of plastics. But they were films and not one of the categories of articles enumerated in the table. In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal , followed the decisions, of the Madras High Court in Precise Impex P. Ltd. v. Collector, (1985) 21 ELT 84, of the Calcutta High Court in Continental Marketing P. Ltd. v. Union, (1987) 28 ELT 11 and of the Bombay High Court in A. V. Jain v. Union, (WP 2136 of 1986, decided on 30-1-1987) (reported in (1987) 29 ELT 872). The Tribunal also referred to its own earlier decisions in Export India Corpn. P. Ltd. v. Collector and Collector v. Fancy Dyeing and Printing Works, Bombay. The Collector of Customs is aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal and hence these appeals. There are three appeals as there were three applications for refund by the assessee in respect of different periods.

4. There is no dispute before us that the goods in question are articles made of plastics. This being so, the assessee is entitled to the exemption conferred by the notification unless the goods answer the description of one or other of the specific items set out in the table. The onus of showing this is clearly on the Revenue. The department contends that the goods are "sheets" or "foils" or "other rectangular or profile shapes" and hence liable to duty. On the other hand the assessees case is that they are "films", a specie of plastic articles different from any mentioned in the table. It is alternatively contended that, even if they are treated only as thin sheets of plastic material, they can be more accurately described only as "sheetings" and not "sheets". It is pointed out that the goods are in the form of large rolls containing films several metres long. Such huge lengths can only be called "sheetings" for the expression "sheets", it is said, connotes only smaller lengths or bits cut out from "sheetings" which mean sheets of immense lengths. Also, being in the form of rolls, they cannot be said to be articles of "rectangular shape" merely because, when cut into segments, they may fall into rectangular pieces.

5. After giving the matter our careful consideration, we are of opinion that the view taken by the three High Courts and the Tribunal that "films" made of plastic fall in a category of their own and do not fall wit