Per S.L. Peeran:

This appeal challenges the classification of the item prescribed in the Invoice as "R 75 Rotamasta Long Run Paper Plates".

2. The Assessee claimed classification under Chapter Heading 4810 of Customs Tariff which covers paper and paperboard, coated on one side or both sides with kaolin or other inorganic substances, with or without binder, and with no other coating. The Revenue did not agree with this contention and sent sample of this item for chemical test. The result of the chemical examiner, describes the sample as "thick sheet of paper cut to size with perforation on sides and graduated markings." The Revenue also relying on the Explanatory Notes under Chapter Heading 48.16 held that item is required to be classified under sub heading 48.16 of the Customs Tariff Act with description, inter alia, "covers off set plates (Offset plates of paper)".

3. There is no dispute raised in this matter about ultimate use of the item as "Offset plates (offset plates of paper)." There is also no dispute about the description in the Bill of Entry as "Lithographic coated plate". The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the description under Heading48.16 specifically covers "paper plates" and its classification under the said heading precedes over the heading covering "paper and paper board coated one side with kaolin." The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted the admitted fact is that the item was "offset paper plate" and therefore, held that the question as to whether offset paper plates are coated on one side kaolin is not of much relevance. He has also noted that it is not relevant as to whether the off set paper plate in question was short run or long run. In view of the specific description in the Bill of Entry lithographic coated plate, the Commissioner has held that the Heading 48.16 is more appropriate than the one claimed by the Assessee. On the said findings he has rejected the appeal of the assessee.

4. Arguing on for the Appellants, the Ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy submits that the Customs House has all along been classifying the items under Heading 48.10 as 'paper and paper board' and the said practice cannot be changed. Although the use of the item and its description in the HSN is not disputed but the understanding, in the Trade and in common parlance, is required to be applied in the present case. The understanding in the Trade is that the item is a paper board and hence it has to be so treated and classified accordingly.

5. On the other hand, Ld. DR Shri S. Arumugam points out page 754 of the description in Explanatory Note under Heading 48.16 which clearly brings within its ambit "paper for offset plates." Therefore, he submits that even as per interpretative rules 3 (a) and 3 (c) the classification has to be adopted as per the specific description and where there are more than one heading the one which is most appropriate and fitting in the last should be adopted.

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the order we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. There is no dispute about the description of the item as "Rotarnasta Paper Plates" in one Bill of Entry and in another Bill of Entry as "Rotamasta Long Run Plates." In third Bill of Entry, the description is as "Lithographic offset paper plate coated plate; cut to specific size and with punched holes at either end to suit fitting on Rotaprint offset Printing machines." The write up given by the appellants also clearly discloses that these plates are specifically manufactured to suit the "Rotaprint Offset Printing Machines" imported from U.K. and marketed by them. They have clearly stated in the write up that these are plates specifically coated to accept the lithographic image for subsequent printing on Rotaprint Offset Printing Machine. The conclusion arrived by the Commissioner that there is clear admission from the appellants with regard t