(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(iii) * * *

(2) Articles made of plastics, all sorts, including tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible, including layflat tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets, not otherwise specified.

(3) * * *

(4) * * *

Explanation I.-For the purpose of sub-item (2), "plastics" means the various artificial or synthetic resins or plastic material or cellulose esters and ethers included in sub-item (1).

Explanation II.-This item does not include-

(a) Polyester films;

(b) electrical insulators or electrical insulating fittings or parts of such insulators or insulating fittings."

4. The Assistant Collector had, pending finalisation of the classification dispute, permitted the goods to be cleared under item 68, CET on a provisional basis. The appellants' contention was that the subject goods were electrical insulators or electrical insulation fittings and so were excluded from the scope of item 15A, CET by Explanation II to the said item. Apparently, the finalisation of the dispute was taking time. At the request of the appellants, the Assistant Collector permitted them to clear the goods on payment of duty under item 15A(2) on provisional basis pending finalisation of the assessment. After holding adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector passed an order dated 5-6-1981 holding 26 grades of rigid plastic laminated sheets manufactured by the appellants as classifiable under item 15A(2) since they were not, in his view, electrical insulators or insulating fittings or parts thereof. The matter was pursued in appeal. While not disputing the capability of the subject goods as insulator fittings, the Appellate Collector, by his order dated 4-8-1981, held that the subject goods were only raw material and could become insulators or fittings only after they were given proper shape by drilling, threading, filing, grooving, etc. He confirmed the classification under item 15A(2), CET. It is against this order that the appellants are now before us.

5. At the outset, Shri J.R. Gagrat, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that item 15A, CET had been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 10-8-1984 on Special Leave Petition No. 654/81-1984 (2) SCAL 380 by which the Court confirmed the Allahabad High Court judgment in Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. -MANU/UP/0338/1980 : 1985 (19) E.L.T. 68. The ratio of the decision was that an article of plastics to fall under item 15A(2), CET, must be made wholly of the materials specified in item 15A(1) and that the end-use of the article was immaterial. Therefore, in so far as the present