K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)

1. This matter arises out of a Revision Application under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1136/Cal/1981, dated 11th August, 1981, passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta. On the constitution of the Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is now being treated as an Appeal before us.

2. None appears on behalf of the appellants, who, in their written submissions, have stated that their's is a small concern and that it is too much for them to bear the expenses involved in attending the hearing at New Delhi. While they were trying their best to be personally represented on the due date, they pray that, if they fail to appear, the appeal may be decided on the basis of their written submissions.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in a classification list filed by the appellants on 18th March, 1976 (effective from 16th March, 1976), it was claimed that their product, declared "FRP Translucent Sheets (corrugated roofings)", should be treated as non-excisable. The product was classified by the Assistant Collector as "Rigid Plastic Sheets", falling under Tariff Item No. 15A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff, assessable to duty as per Government of India Notification No. 71/71, dated 29-5-1971, as amended. When the matter came up in appeal before the Appellate Collector, he ordered de novo adjudication, requiring that an opportunity be given to the assessee to defend their case and directing that a speaking order should be issued by the adjudicating officer. In the show cause notice, issued to the appellants, it was stated that the product was reported to be classifiable as rigid plastic by the National Test House, Alipore, on a physical test of a sample. In reply, M/s. VMT Fibreglass Industries stated that what they were manufacturing was corrugated roofing, which was made from fibre glass mat and polyester resin in an approximate ratio of 40 : 60. It was argued that since the articles were not manufactured out of 100% polyester resin, the same could not be considered as articles of plastics. The appellants cited Trade Notice No. 285/Miner Fibre and Yarn-1/77, dated 20th December, 1977, issued by the Calcutta Collectorate, according to which any article containing mineral fibre in its composition was not to be classified as article made of plastic. It was also pointed out that following the issue of this Trade Notice, various orders were issued directing that proforma credit in respect of duty paid resins could not be utilised for payment of duty in respect of FRP products (roofing material) since such production did not come under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15-A. Further that, even if their product in question is considered as an article made of plastics, within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 15A(2), such roofing was exempt from payment of Central Excise Duty according to Government of India's Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971, on the ground that such roofing is profile in shape and not a sheet. As per the appellants, profiles arc uneven, possessing elevations, depressions and sharp reliefs etc., while sheets are even, more or less flat, broad or thin piece of anything, so that any two points of the product cannot be connected by a straight line without leaving the surface. It was claimed by the appellants before the lower authorities that in the Writ Petition No. 4652/75, the Madras High Court decided in the case of Tufflite Products Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore [1978 E.L.T. (J 509)] that fibre glass panels should be classified as fibre glass products.. The Assistant Collector, in his Order-in-Original, did not take into account the order of the Madras High Court (supra), in view of the fact that appellants failed to produce a copy of the judgment referred to by them. On an examination of the facts of the case, the Assistant Collector gave the finding that the Collectorate Trade Notice No. 1/77, dated 20th December, 1