ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The dispute arising in this appeal of the Revenue is in relation to classification of a product called “Bituminised Poly Laminated Paper”. The assessee classified it under SH 4811.90 attracting duty @ 20%, while the Revenue proposed to reclassify the product under SH 4811.30 attracting duty @ 25% ad valorem. The lower appellate authority has favoured the classification done by the assessee. Hence the present appeal.
2. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice. We have heard ld. SDR.
3. The subject goods is paper coated on one side with bitumen and then laminated with plastic. The appellant’s contention is that the essential characteristic (water proofing) of the product comes from the plastic covering and hence the item should be classified under SH 4811.30 as “paper covered with plastic”. The lower appellate authority has found bitumen as the water-proofing material. We are inclined to endorse this finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We find that it is inappropriate to consider the subject goods as “paper covered with plastic” inasmuch as this description does not take into account the bitumen covering over paper. Paper was coated with bitumen and the bituminised paper was then coated with plastic. Such a product cannot be termed “paper covered with plastic”. Hence, in our view, the subject goods is appropriately classifiable as “bituminised poly laminated paper” under SH 4811.90 as claimed by the assessee.
4. In the result, the impugned order stands upheld. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 12-9-2005)