V.P. Gulati, Member (T)

1. These three appeals have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. These involve a common issue and are therefore being taken up for disposal together. Arguments were heard in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Limited and the same were adopted by the learned advocate appearing for the other two respondents for the purpose of these proceedings. Learned JDR advanced common arguments for all the three appeals. The issues are being examined first in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Limited and the ratio of the decision of this case would apply to the other two cases also.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured paper based laminated sheets out of the duty paid paper falling under T.I. 17 and bought out chemicals falling under T.I. 68. The chemicals -phenol, formaldehyde or melamine along with urea and few other additives are subjected to the process of mixing and heating to the desired temperature under controlled conditions. This results in a product which the respondents describe as resin forming solution. It is not denied that a process of condensation takes place and solution possesses resinuous properties. As seen from the record the respondents have described this resin forming solution before the lower authority as unstable and not having reached full condensation stage. This solution is impregnated as seen from the record in the paper sheets with the top layer being decorative one and these paper sheets together are pressed together under desired conditions of heat and pressure resulting in the formation of decorative laminated sheets. The lower appellate authority held these laminated sheets as assessable under T.I. 68 as against 15A(2) held by the original authority. The revenue is in appeal before us against this decision of the appellate authority.

3. The learned JDR for the Department has pleaded that till 16-10-1982, the respondents had been paying duty for the goods under T.I. 15A(2) and they filed a fresh classification list claiming assessment of the goods under T.I. 68 with effect from 18-10-1982. He pointed out that the respondents in this classification list declared that "no material falling under T.I. 15A(1) is used in these goods". He pleaded that this was a mis-statement as the laminated sheets were made out of the raw materials as set out above. He pleaded that 'A' Stage resin or resole was first produced from raw material mentioned in para 2 above and this was used to manufacture the laminated sheets. He pointed out that the Deputy Chief Chemist also as seen from the order-in-original has opined as under :

"Sample is a cut piece of laminates sheet composed of synthetic resin (amino plast) and papers. It is an article of plastic".

He pleaded that 'A' Stage resin produced by the respondents reacted with the cellulose present in the paper and bonded the sheets together. He pleaded that even the respondents in their letter dated 9-3-1980 which they submitted after the grant of hearing by the Assistant Collector relating to the approval of classification list have mentioned that they had got their goods tested by Alipore Test House and in the Test Report the goods' have been described as under :

"The sample is cut piece of Laminated sheet composed of Synthetic resin (amino plast) and papers. It is an article of plastic".

His plea is that the goods are articles of plastic and the same are considered so even by Alipore Test House authorities and inasmuch as the respondents have based their pleas on this Test Report showing thereby that they had accepted the same and therefore accepted the description of the goods as made of plastic material. He pleaded that the material out of which the laminated sheets have been manufactured was resin known as resole and same has been held to be falling under 15A(1) in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Jay Enterprises Five Others : M