Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. M-1653/PN-115/84 dated 6.8.84 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Kasarwadi are manufacturers of 'Diakanol AMH' as one of their products. The respondent had claimed that the product has padding applications especially in fabric industries and had claimed its classification under tariff item 68 keeping in view tariff advice No. 43/77 with applicable benefits available to small scale industries under relevant notification. In order to ascertain the properties of the product, the samples of the same were sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay on 10.3.1983 and as per Chemical Examiner's report dated 10.5.1983 that sample was an "Acqueous solution of polyacrylamide synthetic resins", with the advice to ascertain actual end-use of the product. The Revenue Authority had given a copy of the test report to the respondent, and stressing on the application of the product, the. respondent clarified that the solution was applied to textile fabric by padding technique. Since the tariff advice as referred to above suggests that the padding solutions are classified under tariff item 68 and not under tariff item No. 15A. The respondent insisted to have classification of the product under tariff item No. 68 under appropriate benefits. A show cause notice on 26.8.8'3 was issued by the Range Supdt. for proper classification under tariff item No. 15A. In reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent contended that the product was a synthetic finishing agent used exclusively for finishing textile material. It is composed of sorgen 50 to the extent of 20% and diluent 80%. The product is highly soluble in the water and the solution is applied to the fabric by padding technique. In order to comply with observation of chemical examiner regarding end-use of the product, the respondent furnished opinion of Bombay Textile Research Association dated 25.8.83 and opinions of their dealers. Relying on these opinions as well as quoting Tariff Advice No. 43/77, the respondent clarified that the product was not classifiable under tariff item No. 15A but under tariff item 68. The learned Asstt. Collector of Central Excise did not accept the contention of the respondent and had held that the product was manufactured under tariff item 15A. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respondent had filed an appeal to the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the product in question 'Diakanol AMH' was correctly classifiable under tariff item No. 68 and set aside the impugned order and had allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned Departmental Representative, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal petition and has pleaded that the Daikanol AMH is correctly classifiable under tariff item No. 15A(1) of the CET and not under tariff item 68 of the CET. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan has referred to the report of the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Laboratory, Bombay which appears on page 37 of the Paper Book and as per report the sample was an aqueous solution of polyacrylamide synthetic resin and falls under tariff item No. 15A. He has pleaded that tariff item 15A has no relation to the end use of the product. He has referred to 'the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemicals and Fibres v. Union of India reported in 1982 ELT 917 where the Hon'ble High Court had held that the rule that the words should be construed, in a popular sense will not be applicable in all cases and cannot be said to be all pervasive. This rule is a qualified rule and is applied to only if