The court's decision was influenced by the timing of bringing forth new evidence and the inability of the appellant to establish the working result of the classification tests at a late stage.

ORDER

1. The dispute in this appeal is whether the product manufactured by the appellant is wrapping/packing paper or millboard. We are concerned herein with the period 1980-81. For this period, the appellant filed a classification list treating the said product as wrapping/packing paper. It was approved. But, later a notice was given seeking to revise the classification. The authorities now wanted to treat it as millboard. After considering the explanation furnished by the appellant, the first authority confirmed the show-cause notice. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal failed.

2. The contention of Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorities have gone by the test evolved in Trade Notice issued on 14-4-1955 (which evolved the test of grammage per square meter), whereas, according to Trade Notice issued on 19-11-1977, the test evolved is one of "thickness". In other words, it is pointed out that while according to 1955 Trade Notice, the density of 180 gms per square meter makes it a millboard, according to the latter, the thickness exceeding C5O kilometers makes it a millboard. It is, however, admitted that this latter Trade Notice was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We do not also know whether in fact the application of these two tests would make any difference in fact. We cannot permit the appellant to establish the working result of these two tests at this late stage.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the appellant is also being prosecuted in a criminal court. It is obvious that the said case shall be determined on its own merits and according to law, uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.