M.N. CHANDURKAR, C.J.

The appellant-company are manufacturers of rubber products such as tread rubber, camel back, cushion gum, tread gum, cushion compound which is also known as cushion repair compound and tread packing strips. We are in this appeal concerned with the liability of the appellant-company to pay excise duty in respect of the cushion repair compound.

2.In the year 1969, the appellant took the stand that cushion repair compound manufactured by them was not excisable and that they were paying duty under protest. The case of the appellant that cushion repair compound was not liable to excise duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector. An appeal against this order was rejected as time-barred by the Collector on 20th September 1971. A revision petition filed against the order of the Appellate Collector was rejected by the Government of India on 5th October 1972.

3.The appellant once again submitted a classification list on 16th May 1972. describing the product manufactured by it as cushion repair compound and paid duty under protest. A fresh classification list was again filed on 1st December 1972. The contention of the appellant was that cushion repair compound