ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against order in Appeal No. SKM-1361/89-BI, dated 23-6-1989 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
1.2 The issue involved in the appeal relates to classification of “Video Cassette Cover”. The Assistant Collector in order-in-original classified these covers under Heading 8523.00 on the ground that these are identifiable parts, principally and solely designed and manufactured for video cassettes and therefore in view of the Section Notes 2 and 5 under Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with Rule 3(a) of the Rules for interpretation are classifiable under Heading 8523.00. Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the Respondents held these Cassette covers to be classifiable under Heading 3926.90. Revenue have come in appeal against the impugned order claiming that video cassette covers merit classification under Tariff Heading 39.23. In their written submission presented by Shri O.P. Arora, Dy. General Manager of the Respondents company they have stated that authorisation issued by the Commissioner is not legal and proper and he has not applied his mind. In their cross objection they also submitted that classification under Heading 39.23 was not in dispute before the original adjudicating authority.
2. Arguing for the Revenue Ld. D.R. submits that even though Collector has not indicated in the authorisation that order is not legal and proper the records of the case clearly indicate that he arrived at the conclusion through application of mind. He took us through the photocopy of the note sheets of the Collectorate file where the decision to file the appeal was taken. In support of his contention that notings also can reveal that Collector did apply his mind to the issue he cited cases reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 210 (SC) C.C.E. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. and 1990 (47) E.L.T. 463 C.C.E. v. Electrols.
3. Arguing on the merits the Ld. S.D.R. submits that Tariff Item 39.23 is specific for articles for the conveyance or packing of goods of plastics whereas Heading 39.26, is residuary item covering other articles or plastics. The covers of plastics are meant only, in regard to video cassettes, for conveyance and storage and Heading 39.23 specifically covers these articles. In regard to the question of classification under Heading 39.23 he submits that this is not a new ground and it was discussed in the Collector (Appeals) order as the Respondents themselves had pleaded this alternative classification.
4. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case. After going through the records of the case which indicate how this appeal came to be filed we are satisfied the notings made therein clearly establish that the matter relating to filing of appeal was discussed and Collector was satisfied and applied his mind to file the appeal. Authorisation issued by him therefore cannot be held to be defective.
5. In regard to classification claim for the first time under Heading 39.23 we observe from the order of the Collector (Appeals) that the Respon- dents themselves had relied upon the Madras Collectorate Trade Notice indicating that plastic covers are intended only for ease of handling and for packing cassettes and they could be properly classified under Heading 39.23. This was therefore an alternative classification pleaded by the Respondents themselves and cannot be considered as entirely new ground in regard to which the Respondents had not been put on notice.
6. Coming to the merits of the case we find that Heading 39.23 is specific to the type of goods under consideration by us. The outer covers are used only for packing these video cassettes for storage and for transportation. Heading 39.23 refers to articles for the conveyance or packing of goods of plastics; …”. This therefore specifically covers the outer covers made of plastics used for packing the goods or for their conveyance. Heading 3926.90 on the other hand refers to “other articles of plastics, and articles of other materials of Heading 39.01 to 39.14. This being a general heading and also residuary in nature cannot be preferred to specific Heading 39.23. In view of this we hold that the goods in question are correctly classifiable under Heading 39.23.
7. In the result we allow the Revenue Appeal and set aside the impugned order. Cross objections are also disposed of in these terms.