ORDER
D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture plastic razors. These razors are made of plastic and iron rod in the stem of the razor. The point to be decided is whether in view of this rod the razor can be said to be an Article of plastic eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11.5.82, which is reproduced below :-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon:
Provided that –
(a) Such articles are produced out of artificial resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers in any form falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 15A of the said First Schedule on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has already been paid; or
(b) Such articles are produced out of scrap of plastics.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this notification, Plastics’ means the various artificial or synthetic resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers included in sub-item (1) of Item No. 15 A of the aforesaid First Schedule.”
In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), following the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., has held that this razor being a composite Article is not an Article of plastic and is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 182/82-C.E. (supra).
2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri K.P. Singh, learned SDR for the respondent. Shri Lakshmikumaran has argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He has stated that the present case relates to the amended T.I. 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, the amendment being effective from 1.3.82, whereas the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries related to T.I. 15A(2) before amendment of 1.3.82. Further, the Notification No. 182/82-C.E. was not before the Supreme Court. He has also argued that it is not necessary that the Article should be made wholly out of plastic. For this argument he has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in 1977 ELT (J-61) in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur. According to him, this judgment takes care of the wording of the Notification No. 182/82-C.E.
3. Shri K.P. Singh has argued that Notification No. 182/82-C.E. is a conditional notification. As the razor is a composite Article consisting of plastic and iron rod, it is not eligible for the exemption under the above notification. He has relied on the decision, reported in 1984 ECR 533 (Tribunal).
4. We have considered the records of the case and the arguments put forth before us. In Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1985 (19) ELT 68 (Allahabad), the Hon’ble Allahabad H|gh Court held that the plastic torch, manufactured by the said assessee, in which, the main body was of plastic, could not be said to be Article made of plastic covered by sub-item (2) of item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff, but they would attract duty under Item 68 ibid. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 654 of 1981 (Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.) filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 10.8.84. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in 1985 (22) ELT 3 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that articles made of plastic means articles made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastic and not articles made of plastic alongwith other materials. As the plastic torch manufactured by Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. contained other materials alongwith plastics, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the classification of the same under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Tariff Item 15A(2) as articles of plastic.
5. The learned advocate has tried to distinguish the present case from the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries to support his contention that the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of the case before us. The contention of the learned advocate is not acceptable to us. Although in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries the T.I. 15A(2) as it stood prior to amendment on 1.3.82 was under consideration as against amended T.I. 15A(2) in the present case, this will not make any difference. T.I. 15A(2) before amendment on 1.3.82 read as under :-
“15A(2) Articles made of plastics, all sorts, including tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible, including layflat tubings, and polyvinyl chloride sheets, not otherwise specified.”
Explanation-I to this Tariff Item states as follows :-
“For the purpose of sub-Item (2), “plastics” means the various artificial or synthetic resin or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers included in sub-item (1).”
The amended Tariff Item 15A(2) reads as under :-
“(2) Articles of materials described in sub-item (1), the following, namely :-
Boards, sheeting, sheets and films, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated or not; lay flat tubings not containing any textile material.”
Sub-item (2) of Tariff Item 15A before amendment on 1.3.82 covered articles made of plastic, all sorts. Sub-item (2) of the amended Item 15A refers to articles of materials described in sub-item (1) of the said Tariff Item. Plastic materials are included in sub-item (1) of the amended Tariff Item. In the case before us, the issue for decision is whether the razor manufactured by the appellants is an Article of plastic and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E. The issue for decision in the Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. case was whether the torch manufactured by the said assessee was an Article of plastic. Therefore, the wording of the un-amended and amended sub-item (2) of Tariff Item 15A does not make any difference so far as the ratio of the Supreme Court decision is concerned.
6. According to the proviso to Notification No. 182/82-C. E., an Article to be eligible for this notification should be produced out of artificial resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers in any form falling under sub-item (1) of Item 15A. Explanation to this notification clearly says that for the purpose of this notification “plastics” means the various artificial or synthetic resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters or ethers included in sub-item (1) of Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. Since the razor manufactured by the appellants are not wholly made of plastics, but are made of plastics and Iron rod, the same is not covered by the notification. The learned advocate has also argued that this Notification No. 182/82-C.E. was not before the Supreme Court in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries’ case. This argument also does not stand as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is being applied with reference to the wording of this notification.
The learned advocate has relied on this Tribunal’s decision in V.M. T. Fibreglass Industries, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, reported in 1986 (23) ELT 194 in which it was held that the fibre glass reinforced product corrugated and plain roofing manufactured by the appellants having a composition of fibre glass mats and polyester resin, approximately in the ratio of 40 :60, was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2). This decision cannot be followed in the present case in view of the Supreme Court decision (Supra). The Supreme Court decision was not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the Fibreglass Industries case (supra). As regards Supreme Court decision reported in 1977 ELT (J 61) relied on by the learned advocate we observe that the decision in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries case being later in point of time, the same is required to be followed by us.
7. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the razor manufactured by the appellants herein is not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11.5.82. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal.