G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The dispute in the two captioned appeals revolves round the correct classification, under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (GET, for short), of certain goods-"treated paper, treated fabrics and treated glass fabrics"-manufactured by the appellants hereinafter referred to as Formica). There are also other ancillary issues to which we shall refer at the appropriate places.

2. Since the basic issues are similar in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts of the case in Appeal No. 1516/83-C, briefly stated, are that Formica manufacture Rigid Plastic Laminates. For this purpose, they procure paper, cotton fabrics and glass fabrics as raw materials and treat them with synthetic resin to obtain treated paper, treated cotton fabric and treated glass fabric. Several layers of treated paper/treated fabric are compressed under heat and pressure to form rigid plastic laminates. The treated paper/fabric were consumed captively for the manufacture of rigid plastic laminates without paying Central Excise duty leviable thereon under Item 17(2) (treated paper), Item 19B (treated cotton fabric) and Item 22B (treated glass fabric). Classification Lists under these items filed by Formica had been duly approved by the Department and Formica was paying duty on clearances of these goods to outside parties but not on those goods which were taken into captive consumption within the factory for production of rigid plastic laminates. The Excise authorities issued to Formica nine show cause notices demanding payment of duty on the captively consumed goods covering the period from 13-1-1976 to 31-12-1981. In due course, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune confirmed these demands by his order dated 20-3-1982. He held that Formica was liable to pay duty on treated paper/cotton fabric and treated glass fabric (consumed captively by it in the manufacture of rigid plastic laminated sheets), under Items Nos. 17(2), 19 and 22B respectively. Formica pursued the matter in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, but did not meet with success. It is this order of the Appellate Collector that is under challenge before us.

The facts in Appeal No. 1505/83-C, briefly stated, are that Formica claimed before the Assistant Collector that they were not manufacturing treated glass fabrics. Glass fabrics were purchased from the market and Formica did the process of impregnation of the fabrics with epoxy or phenolic resins for turning the fabric into laminates. Mineral fibres predominated in treated glass fabric and hence the latter should be classified under Item No. 22F, GET and exempted under Notification No. 87/76, dated 16-^-1976. The Assistant Collector negatived this contention and held that Item No. 22B was specific for textile fabrics, impregnated, coated or laminated, not elsewhere specified and covered treated glass fabrics. Aggrieved with the Assistant Collector's order, Formica pursued the matter in appeal. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal by his order dated 6-4-1983. It appears from the said order that Formica gave up the claim for classification under Item 22F, CET. Instead, they pressed for classification under Item 15A, CET and, alternatively, under Item 68 CET. It further appears that even this stand was modified by contending that the treated glass fabric would not fall under Item 15A, CET since the solution used for treating the fabric was an unstable reactive mixture which had not reached complete resinification at all. It was thus contended that the treated fabrics were non-excisable or, alternatively, classifiable under Item 68, CET. The Collector (Appeals) held that the glass fabrics, having been treated with preparations of epoxy or phenolic resins, according to Formica's own admission, correctly fell under Item 22 B and not 68 of the CET. It is this second order of the Collector (Appeals) that is also under challenge before us in these