V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

1. Special Bench 'C' consisting of three Members, heard the appeal (513/80 of M/s. United Paper Products Ltd.) earlier. One of the Members prepared an order suggesting that the issue in dispute may be referred to a Bench of more than three Members in view of certain conflict between earlier orders of the Tribunal. One of the other Members agreed with this proposal, though the third Member did not. Subsequently, under orders of the President, this appeal was directed to be heard by a Bench of five Members, and that is how this appeal has been placed for hearing before us. Since another appeal (174/80 of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd.) also involved a similar issue, the same had also come, under the orders of the President, to be heard along with appeal No. 513/80.

2. At the hearing of these two appeals, M/s. Eastern Box Industries (Appeal No. 111/82-C) and M/s. National Laminators (Appeal No. 941/82) were, on their application, heard as interveners.

3. We have heard Shri Bhaskar Gupta, Bar-at-law, for M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd. ; Shri H.P. Arora, Advocate for M/s. United Paper Products; Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Advocate, for M/s. Eastern Box Industries ; and Shri M.G. Ramachandran, Advocate for M/s. National Laminators and also Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, JDR for the department.

4. The product manufactured by M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., consists of two layers of kraft paper joined together by a layer of polythene. The product manufactured by M/s. United Paper Products is bituminized laminated paper, consisting of two layers of kraft paper joined together by bitumin as adhesive. The period in dispute in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd. is 1-4-1970 to 28-2-1974. The period in dispute in the case of United Paper Products is 16-3-1976 to 26-5-1976. It may, therefore, be noted that, so far as the period in dispute in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd., there was no Tariff Item 68 CET in existence during that period. There is also no dispute that it was by employment of extrusion process that the product of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., came into existence.

5. Tariff item 17 CET had been undergoing amendments now and then. For a proper appreciation of the issues involved and the submissions made, the Tariff item, as it stood from time to time, is reproduced below : Tariff Item 17 as it stood prior to 1974 :

xxx xxx xxx

6. In respect of the product of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., they had been referring to the same in their correspondence as coated paper and had been claiming that in respect of such coated paper they were entitled to rely upon Trade Notice No. 94/Paper-VI/CE/1975 dated 8-8-1975 of the West Bengal Collectorate. Shri Bhaskar Gupta also in his arguments referred to this Trade Notice. But it would be seen that the Trade Notice dealt with paper coated or laminated on one side only with polythene. No doubt the word 'laminate' had been used with reference to the polythene material and the heading read polythene coated/laminated paper. Shri Gupta contended that in the circumstances the product of M/s. Guardian Plasticote should also be described and treated as coated paper only and would, therefore, be entitled to exemption. When it was pointed out to him that in their correspondence they had referred to the product as laminated paper, he stated that it might have been so described in certain places but it would not really matter as the two processes are both referred to without distinction in the Trade Notice. But, as earlier seen, the Trade Notice referred to a product with a polythene film on one side of the paper, whereas, in the present instance, polythene film is pressed between two layers of kraft paper. It could, therefore, be described only as laminated paper rather than coated paper.

7. Two further facts relied upon by Shri Gupta, with reference to which there appeared to be no dispute, are that the product manufactured by M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., was being supplied to the