S. Venkatesan, Sr. Vice-President

1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.

2. The goods in this case are what the appellants have described as "E class electrical grade insulating papers". They were classified by the Customs authorities under Heading No. 39.01/06, relating to artificial resins and plastic materials, etc. The appellants claimed reassessment under Heading No. 48.01/21, relating to paper and paper-board and articles thereof. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, who held that the assessment under Heading No. 39.01/06 was in order. Their appeal to the Appellate Collector was rejected for reasons which will be mentioned later. Against this order of rejection the appellants filed a revision application which now stands transferred to the Tribunal.

3. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Sogani argued the case in great detail. Before setting out his arguments, it would be useful to take note of two previous orders of the Tribunal.

4. In its order No. D171 to 178/83 dated 5-4-1983, a Bench of the Tribunal dealt with a batch of eight appeals from the present appellants. The goods in that case were described in the invoice and the relative Bills of Entry as "Presspahn paper". The question in those cases was whether the goods should be considered as "paper" or "paper-board". The lower authorities had held that it was "paper-board" and therefore not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under exemption notification No. 37/78 dated 1-3-78, which at the relevant time was applicable only to paper and not to paper-board. The Bench held that in the absence of any statutory demarcating line between "paper" and "board" either in the Tariff Schedule or in the relevant notification, they had to go by the understanding in the electrical trade and industry.. After referring to relevant Indian Standards Specifications and British Standards Specifications, the Bench held that the goods in question should be considered as "paper" and were therefore eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the notification.

5. It should be mentioned that the goods in question in the above cases were accepted as being of either paper or paper-board. No question arose that they were a composite article of paper and plastic material, like the goods which are the subject of the present appeal.

6. The second relevant decision of the Tribunal is contained in its Order No. 303/83C, in a case relating to Messrs Yesh Udyog, Sawantwadi. The goods were described by the importers as "Class E Other high temperature insulating paper", and were assessed under Heading No. 39.01/06 CTA for basic duty and under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff for countervailing duty. The appellants claimed refund on the ground that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 48 CTA, read with notification No. 37/78 dated 1-3-78. The Assistant Collector "closed" the refund claim without giving a proper reason. On appeal, the Appellate Collector held that the goods were a composite material inasmuch as the paper had been laminated with a thin plastic film. He observed that the goods had to be classified in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Rules for the interpretation of the Customs Tariff (or 'Interpretative Rules'). The Appellate Collector held that the essential character of the goods came only from the paper and not from the polyester film. He accordingly held that the goods were classifiable as paper under Chapter 48 CTA, and also entitled to the concessional rate of duty under notification No. 37/78. The Central Government, being tentatively of the view that the Appellate Collector's order was not correct, initiated proceedings under Section 131(2), Customs Act as in force at that time. The matter was transferred to the Tribunal and dealt with as