D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the same Order-in-appeal. Hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The dispute in this case is the classification of laminated paper or paper board for the purpose of central excise duty. The appellants claimed classification under Heading 4818.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as other articles of paper pulp, paper or paper board. The Assistant Collector classified it under Heading 392031 as article of plastic. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) ordered classification of the goods under Heading 481139 as laminated paper or paper board.

3. The impugned order describes the process of manufacture of the appellants' goods, which is as follows:

"Paper is passed through resin bath and is impregnated with resin (phenol formaldehyde resin) to obtain resin impregnated paper. These are used as core paper. The top papers are the design paper. After design is printed on the paper or bought as printed paper, it is passed through the resin bath and similarly impregnated (melamine formaldehyde resin). These sheets of paper are then laminated in the hydraulic press applying pressure and heat to make a laminated sheet and during the process in hydraulic press, the resin passed through the pores of paper and acts as a binder between the said paper sheets. The end- product is sold for purpose of surfacing of furniture etc. They further stated that in the finished product, 30 to 40% is represented by resin and the rest is by paper, by weight and thickness. Therefore, the paper thickness is also predominant in each layer, and also in the finished product. The top paper gives the decorative aspect of the final sheet as well as the thickness."

4. Shri Subramanyam, for the assessee, has argued that their goods are not laminated or impregnated paper or paper board. These are articles of paper and paper board. Hence, classifiable under Heading 4818.90 of C.E.T. Act. He has ruled out classification under Heading 392031 in view of Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 39 of C.E.T A. as, for the purpose of classification under Heading 39.20, the goods should be made out of the materials falling under Headings 39.01 to 39.14, which are pari materia with Item 15A(1) of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Sheets of plastics should be made exclusively of materials falling under Heading 39.01 to 39.14. He has relied on 1985 (22) ELT 3 (S.C.) and MANU/CE/0127/1988 : 1988 (36) ELT 139 (Tribunal) in support of this argument. The finished goods in this case directly emanate from impregnated paper falling under Heading 48.11, and not from the materials falling under Headings 39.01 to 39.14. He has drawn our attention to Rule 1 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff and has said that these goods being articles of paper and paper board clear y falls under the Tariff Heading 48.18. Therefore, there is no question of applying Interpretative Rules 2(b) or 3, as these Rules cannot be applied without exhausting Rule 1.

5. Shri Subramanyam has argued that the paper content in the finished product is 60-70% and hence the goods fall in Chapter 48 of the Tariff. Chapter Note 1(f) in Chapter 48 excludes from this Chapter those paper-reinforced stratified plastic sheeting, or one layer of paper or paper board coated or covered with a layer of plastics where plastics constitute more than half the total thickness. However, his contention is that laminated paper is an excisable intermediate product, but the final finished product is an article of the said laminated paper. Laminated paper is also paper. Therefore, the finished product is an article of paper, classifiable under Heading 4818.90.

6. Shri Doiphode for the Revenue has pleaded for classification under Heading 3920.31. He has argued that the characteristic of the finished product is resin and not paper. Paper is a filler in this case and it gives