K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)

1. At the outest, when the matter is called, Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned departmental representative, rises to submit that an issue similar to the one involved in the matter before us is before a Larger Bench in the case relating to Guardian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [Appeal No. ED (SB) T/174/ 80-C]. He, therefore, contends that the decision in that matter should be awaited before proceeding in this case. Shri Sundar Rajan also states that the Issue regarding limitation is also the subject-matter of the proceedings before a separate Larger Bench and that for this reason also it is desirable to adjourn the matter until that decision also becomes available.

2. Shri A. Hidayatullah, the learned senior advocate for the appellants has strongly opposed the adjournment. He has stated that he is not going to pursue the point of limitation and he would like the matter to be decided no merits. On merits, Shri Hidayatullah states, the issue before the Larger Bench in the matter regarding M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta is of on relevance whatsoever. Whereas the issue in that matter relates to durability of polyethylene coated/laminated paper produced as a result of the process consisting basically of direct lamination of a film of polyethylene against base material, namely, paper, in this case the product is completely different, namely, single-lined Hessian Rolls or bags, which are manufactured by one side of the Hessian Roll Bag, being laminated to kraft paper using bitumen as an adhesive. In the case of double lined Hessian Rolls or Bags, Hessian fabric forms both the outer surfaces and the kraft paper is placed between the two layers of Hessian fabric with bitumen as an adhesive coated on both sides of the kraft paper. The third variety comprises Hessian sandwiched bags in which paper forms both the outer surfaces while hessian is placed between the two layers of paper, using bitumen as an adhesive. Shri Hidayatullah points out that the issue of classification of his products is settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mahakali Plastic-Weave Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1983 E.L.T. 2064). When asked by the Bench whether all the three varieties in the present matter are covered by the Tribunal's decision referred to, Shri Hidayatullah clarifies that the decision covers two of the three varieties, namely, the variety which has hessian on one side and paper on the other and the variety which has hessian in between and both sides covered by paper. It is pointed out that the third variety which was not before the Bench in the Mahakali case in fact is closer to the jute predominance criteria made applicable by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the classification of the products is also covered by the Government of India's order in the Revision in the case of Board Paper Converters, Bangalore (1980 E.L.T. 788). Shri Hidayatullah in this connection further cites Tariff Advice No. 2/77 dated 15th February, 1977 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in which all Collectors of Central Excise were informed that it has been decided on a consideration of opinions expressed by various technical authorities, namely, Chief Chemist, Jute Commissioner and D.G.T. D. that the product in question which contained more than 50% jute by weight satisfied the definition of jute manufactures under Item 22A of Central Excise Tariff. Since hessian predominated both in terms of value and weight, and the strength and other functional purposes of the products were also mainly due to the hessian, the paper being used only to cover the holes between the warp and weft of the jute fabrics, it was concluded that the product in question is classifiable under Item 22A of Central Excise Tariff.

3. Responding, Shri A. Sundar Rajan, the learned departmental representative concedes that the impugned products are fully co