G. Sankaran, Member (T)

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

2. The Appellants are manufacturers of Fibre glass reinforced plastic (F.R.P.) corrugated and semi-corrugated roofing sheets. By a letter dated 9-7-1975, they had claimed exemption from duty in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 on the aforesaid goods which till then were charged to duty as rigid plastic sheets under Item No. 15A(2)of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Asstt. Collector by his letter dated 15-10-1975, acceded to the appellants' request on the ground that F.R.P. roofing sheets had got profile shapes and could not be re-shaped and were directly moulded from resins. However, on 30-1-1976, the Supdt. of Central Excise informed the appellants that the question of exemption of F.R.P. roofing sheets was under review by the Government of India. This was reiterated on 8-2-1976 when it was also said that the Appellate Collector's order on a similar issue in the case of another assessee was under review. By these letters, the appellant was directed to observe all excise formalities, maintain all statutory records and was given the option to avail themselves of provisional assessment. It appears, however, that the appellants failed to comply with these directions. Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued by the Supdt. alleging contravention of Rules 173-C, 173-F, 173-G, 52A and 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were also asked to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 39,470.20 should not be recovered from them for the periods 6-9-1975 to 15-3-1976 and 16-3-1976 to 31-8-1976 and why a penalty should not be imposed oh them under Rule 173-Q. The appellants contested the notice and contended that the F.R.P. roofing sheets were moulded articles, having profiles and since they could not be re-shaped, they were only articles of plastics and not sheets liable to duty in terms of Item 15A(2), CET read with Notification 68/71. The Asstt. Collector did not accept these contentions but held that they were rigid plastic sheets liable to duty "in respect of clearances effected from 6-9-75 to 31-8-76, and clearances of the product in question effected thereafter till to date, will also be liable to duty at appropriate rate and assessee shall pay the same on demand being raised by Range Supdt. for subsequent period and same shall be deemed to have been confirmed by issue of this order." He also confirmed under Rule 10A the aforesaid demand for Rs. 39,470.20 for the period from 6-9-1975 to 31-8-1976. He also held the alleged contraventions of Central Excise Rules as having been established and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 on the appellants under Rule 173-Q.

3. The matter was pursued in appeal by the appellants. In his order of 20-2-1979, the Appellate Collector observed that "in matters of classification, if a similar issue is under the consideration by the Government, it is not necessary that each individual case should be brought to the notice of the Government for review. It would only be unnecessary work both on the part of the assessee and the Government". On this reasoning, he concluded that the earlier order of the Assistant Collector dated 15-10-1975 allowing the classification list, had not acquired the status of finality and should be deemed to have been under review and consequently rejected the appeal.

4. During the hearing before us on 11-4-1984, the following salient points were made by the learned Counsel for the appellants -

(i) The action of the Supdt. in issuing the show cause notice on 10-9-1976 in spite of the Assistant Collector's order of 15-10-1975 and the Assistant Collector's approval of the classification list, and the subsequent proceedings were illegal in the absence of properl