D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. The appellants manufacture plastic razors. These razors are made of plastic and iron rod in the stem of the razor. The point to be decided is whether in view of this rod the razor can be said to be an Article of plastic eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11.5.82, which is reproduced below :-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon:

Provided that -

(a) Such articles are produced out of artificial resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers in any form falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 15A of the said First Schedule on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has already been paid; or

(b) Such articles are produced out of scrap of plastics.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, Plastics' means the various artificial or synthetic resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers included in sub-item (1) of Item No. 15 A of the aforesaid First Schedule."

In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), following the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., has held that this razor being a composite Article is not an Article of plastic and is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 182/82-C.E. (supra).

2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri K.P. Singh, learned SDR for the respondent. Shri Lakshmikumaran has argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He has stated that the present case relates to the amended T.I. 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, the amendment being effective from 1.3.82, whereas the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries related to T.I. 15A(2) before amendment of 1.3.82. Further, the Notification No. 182/82-C.E. was not before the Supreme Court. He has also argued that it is not necessary that the Article should be made wholly out of plastic. For this argument he has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in 1977 ELT (J-61) in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur. According to him, this judgment takes care of the wording of the Notification No. 182/82-C.E.

3. Shri K.P. Singh has argued that Notification No. 182/82-C.E. is a conditional notification. As the razor is a composite Article consisting of plastic and iron rod, it is not eligible for the exemption under the above notification. He has relied on the decision, reported in 1984 ECR 533 (Tribunal).

4. We have considered the records of the case and the arguments put forth before us. In Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in MANU/UP/0338/1980 : 1985 (19) ELT 68 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the plastic torch, manufactured by the said assessee, in which, the main body was of plastic, could not be said to be Article made of plastic covered by sub-item (2) of item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff, but they would attract duty under Item 68 ibid. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 654 of 1981 (Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.) filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 10.8.84. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in 1985 (22) ELT 3 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that articles made of plastic means articles made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastic and not articles made of plastic alongwith other materials. As the plastic torch manufactured by Jeep Flashl