Per: G.A. BRAHMA DEVA: This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. /92(M) sr. 21.1.92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.

2. The facts of the case in brief as stated in the statement of facts are that the respondents M/s. Coromandal Prodorite Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of articles of fibre glass such as pipes and fittings, storage tanks, fume exhaust systems, tank covers, chimney and other tailor made items against specific orders from their customers. These items are manufactured by moulding plastic sheets like PVC/ Polypropylence/Polyethylence and on these layers of fibre glass are laid and coated with resins. During the relevant period the respondents were clearing these goods on payment of duty at the rate applicable to Chapter 39. The Department was of the view that the items merit classification under Chapter heading 70.14 and accordingly issued show cause notices periodically covering the period from 1.8.89 to 23.7.91 on the ground that Chapter heading 70.14 would cover glass fibres (including glass wool and glass filaments) and articles thereof (for example yarn, woven fabrics) whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. The Assistant Collector who adjudicated the proceedings held that the impugned goods are classifiable under Chapter heading 70.14 and accordingly confirmed the demand for differential duty. The respondents filed appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who has allowed observing that Board had clarified in 1985 that classification of composite articles of plastics made out of a combination of plastics and non-plastic materials would depend on the predominance of weight and value of the component materials which have gone into the manufacture of such composite articles and that in the impugned articles, plastic constitutes 65% and glass reinforcement only 30 to 35%.

3. Shri J.P. Singh, learned Junior Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue explained the nature and characteristics of the product in question with reference to technical literature as appeared in page 52 to 55 of the paper book and submitted that predominance of weight of plastics material in the composite articles is not criterian to decide the issue of classification but main characteristic of the item plays an important role in determining the issue of classification. He referred to the Concise Encyclopaedia of Composite Materials by Anthony Kelly and relevant extracts from Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology, Third Edition, Volume 13 by Kirk Othmer (pages 968 & 969) and explained nature to the composite of material submitting that reinforced plastics are combinations of fibres and polymeric binders or matrices that form composite materials. The combination of strong fibres and synthetic polymers to form reinforced plastics and laminated derives from several basic consideration of materials science: the inherent strength of fine fibres, the wetting requirement for adhesion, and the case of the liquid-solid phase a change by synthetic polymers. The reinforced plastics are used very widely in chemical applications, such as pipes, tubes, tanks, hoods, ducts, flues, fittings, and general hardware. He said that chapter heading 70.14 covers glass fibre and articles thereof whether or not impregnated, coated covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. By virtue of additional clause whether or not in the tariff or articles of glass fibre including those impregnated etc. with plastic would fall within the scope of Chapter heading 70.14 only irrespective of predominance of weight. He also submitted that the product in question sold in the market as "glass" and not such as articles of plastic. He contended that Chapter heading 70.14 is more specific than the heading Chapter 39 and accordingly Chapter 70.14 is to be preferred as per rule 3 (a) of interpretative rule. He said (hat chemical examiner's report dt. 18.12.91 confirms that it is a co