The meaning of 'articles made of plastics' in the context of Customs Notification 228/76, as amended by 443/Cus./76, includes 'films', and the Revenue's interpretation to the contrary was perverse.

Petitioner imported 35 cartons of plastic Metallised films Ex S.S. Lyumila Stal under bill of entry C.R. No. 402/79 No. 68, dated 21-6-1979 of the C.I.F. value of Rs. 80, 065/- and claimed concessional assessment for the above imported goods under Customs Notification 228/76, as amended by 443/Cus./76, which wholly exempts countervailing duty on articles set out in the notification. The basic customs duty leviable under item 39.07, of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at Rs. 96, 066/- was paid, but the additional levy of duty at Rs. 88, 060.50 was disputed. This writ petition was filed without availing of the remedies provided under the Act. The assessment was made on 6-7-1979.

2.Respondent takes up the stand that though the word 'films' is not specifically mentioned in Notification No. 228-Customs, dated 2-8-1976, as amended by Notification No. 443- Customs of 1976, a countervailing duty at the rate of 50 per cent of the value under Item 15-A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff is leviable. A film being a sheet of plastic of a kind, it falls within the exclusion contemplated in the Notification. Merely because films do not find a place in item 15-A (2) of Central Excise Tariff, it will not be correct to claim that it would fall within the expression '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 lay flat tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets and otherwise specified'. Films will fall within the ambit of the words 'sheets' and 'foils' whether they are rigid or flexible. Merely because the explanatory note to the notification states that for the purpose of this notification the expression 'articles made of plastics' shall have the same meaning as in sub-item (2) of item 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) ; it would not mean that the Notification issued under Tariff Act, should be understood in the same manner. In Brussels Nomenclature Chapter 39.07, films are described as articles of rectangular shape. Merely because in the Notification issued under Excise Act, films are specifically mentioned, it cannot be treated, for purposes of the Tariff Act, that it is a separate kind of article. When classification is involved, it is undoubtedly for the Revenue authorities to decide in view of the decision. There being no ambiguity, petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Reliance placed on I.S.I, has no relevance. When exemption is claimed, the burden is upon the petitioner to show that the imported goods fell within excluded category, and what is more important is not the distinctive descriptive word that may be used in the documents, but what was the type of goods imported.

3.Mr. Habibulla Basha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, there is no dispute that the goods imported were plastic metallised films. As for levy of basic duty under Tariff Act, there is no dispute. It is only with reference to levy of additional duty under Sec. 3 of the Act, reliance is placed on the Notification No. 228-Customs, dated 2-8-1876, amended by Notification No. 443-Customs, dated 29-11-1976. It is to the effect that articles made of plastics of all sorts are exempt from payment of so much of duty of the Customs as is leviable thereto under S.3 of the Tariff Act, but excluding those specified in the Table Annexed thereto. Explanatory Note is to the effect that 'articles made of plastics' shall have the same meaning as in item 15-A (2) of Excise Act. The word 'film' is not found in the Table. Hence, the concession is available to the petitioner.

4.The plea of the revenue is that, the words 'sheets, foils, whether rigid or flexible, include 'films'. By referring to Chapter 39.07 in Brussels Nomenclature, Mr. Thyagarajan, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that, a film is an article of rectangu