G. Sankaran, Member

1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Udvada, District Bulsar (Gujarat) (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) are manufacturers of paper. Paper is excisable under item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as CET). The dispute in the present matter relates to a variety of paper known as maplitho paper of grammage ramping from 140 grammes per sq. metre (GSM) to 179 GSM. Prior to 16 3.1976, the Respondents were clearing such paper as pulp-board falling under sub-item (3) of item No. 17 CET. On 16.3.1976, item No, 17 of the CET underwent certain legislative changes. From 16.3.1976 onwards the Respondents were clearing maplitho paper of the above grammage under sub-item (I) of item No. 17 CET as printing and writing paper. It appears that the Central Excise authorities made certain trade enquiries which revealed that the said paper was being used as card, title cover and outer cover of text books, etc. The authorities, therefore, considered that the correct classification of the subject paper was under sub-item (2) of item No. 17 and not sub-item (1). On this basis, the Supdt. of Central Excise, Bulsar issued on 12.4.1977 a notice to the Respondents asking them to show cause why a sum of Rs. 76,371.11 representing the short levied duty should not be recovered from them in respect of the maplitho paper cleared by them during the period from 13.4.1976 to 31.1.1977 in terms of the provisions of Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In due course, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat passed an order dated 30.9.1977 holding that the maplitho paper in question was classifiable under item No. 17(2) CET and consequently, confirming the demand in the show cause notice. Aggrieved with this order, the Respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who, in his order in Appeal No. 282/79 dated 9 4.1979, held that the end-use of the paper taken into consideration by the Assistant Collector was not material and that the subject paper was classifiable under item No. 17(1) and not 17(2) and thus set aside the Assistant Collector's Order-in-Original. In exercise of the powers vested in them, under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, the Central Government called for examination of the records of the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal for the purpose of examining the propriety, legality and correctness of the said order. It appeared to the Central Government that in allowing the appeal, the Appellate Collector lost sight of the fact that item No. 17(2) CET covered not only paper board but also other papers not falling under item No. 17(1) and the fact that trade inquiries had revealed that the subject paper was actually used as card, outer cover of text books, etc. and not as printing and writing paper. The Central Government also relied upon a report of the Tariff Commission of the Government of India in the course of which the Commission had observed that this type of paper of grammage below 85 GSM was normally Used for the purpose of priming while that above 85 GSM was used for the purpose of drawing. It, , therefore, appeared to the Central Government that the subject paper would fall outside the scope of item No. 17(1) and that it would be appropriately covered under item No. 17(2). Based on these premises, the Central Government formed the tentative view that the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector was not proper, legal and correct. By notice E. No. 198/4/2/80-CX-V dated 20.3.1980, the Central Government called upon the