G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The present appeal is directed against Order No. 251-CE/MRT/83, dated 19-11-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of M/s. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter called the Respondents) that coated precipitated chalk was eligible for exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955. The Assistant Collector had denied the benefit of this exemption and the Appellate Collector set aside the Assistant Collector's order and extended the benefit of the exemption.

2. We have heard Shri S.N Khanna, Departmental Representative for the Appellant and Shri T.M. Ansari, Advocate for the Respondents.

3. Notification No. 23/55 issued by the Central Government under Central Excise Rule 8(1) exempts several specified products from the whole of the duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The entry relevant for our present purpose reads as follows :

"Minerals, employed either as extenders, suspending agents or fillers or as diluents, namely : - Barytes, Bauxite, Bentonite, China Clay, Celestite, Limestone and Chalk (including Precipitated Chalk), Fuller's Earth, Gypsum, Mica, Silica, Asbestine, Talc and Slate."

4. We are concerned with the goods specified as "Chalk (including Precipitated Chalk)". It is the appellant's contention that coated precipitated chalk is not covered by the entry whereas the Respondents' contention is that it is.

5. The Respondents filed a classification list on 4-3-1982 seeking classification of the two products in dispute, namely, "SEACAL - S2 (COATED) and SEACALITE (COATED)" under Item No. 14 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the C.E.T., for brevity's sake) and exemption from duty leviable thereon under the said item in terms of Notification No. 23/55. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise disallowed the claim and ordered the classification of the goods under Item No. 68 C.E.T. It needs to be noted here that the Assistant Collector did not give any reasons whatsoever why he rejected the claim of the Respondents and classified the products under Item No. 68-C.E.T. The order was passed by merely modifying the classification indicated by the Respondents in the classification list.

6. The Collector (Appeals) based his impugned order on another order dated 29-4-1983 passed by him on another appeal involving the same product. He observed that coated precipitated chalk was also precipitated chalk and was covered by the entry in the notification. Consequently, he allowed the appeal.

7. Before us, Shri Khanna, learned Departmental Representative, contended that precipitated chalk manufactured by the Respondents was coated with stearic acid. The coating had the effect of making the substance mix more effectively and making it a better filler because of its better flow. He contended that, in trade and technical parlance, coated precipitated chalk was different from and not the same thing as uncoated precipitated chalk. He relied upon passages from the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology by Kirk-Othmer. He also referred to Tariff Advice No. 140, dated 30th December, 1981 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that coated precipitated chalk was classifiable under Item No. 68C.-E.T. Shri Khanna laid emphasis on two aspects. Firstly, he urged that the word "namely" restricted the scope of the notification to what was specifically enumerated therein. In support of this stand and the meaning and effect of the word "namely" he cited two decisions, one of the Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983 E.L.T. 24) and the other of this Tribunal in Delta Spokes Manufacturing Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1983 E.L.T. 547). Secondly, he urged that coated precipitated chalk was not a mineral and only mineral substances were cove