ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the plastic laminated sheet is classifiable under sub-heading 3920.31 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 4823.90 as was held in the impugned order.
2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the classification of the paper based decorative laminated sheets has been made by the Apex Court under sub-heading 3920.31 in the case of Collector, Central Excise v. Wood Polymers Ltd. -1998 (97) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) and accordingly the impugned order has to be set aside.
3. Shri A.V. Naik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Neoluxe India Ltd., submitted that decorative laminated sheets do not fall under sub-heading 3920.31 because for goods falling under the said sub-heading, there must come into existence plastic rigid sheet first which should be lacquered or metalled or laminated, etc., that in the process of manufacture of their impugned product, plastic sheet does not at all come into existence at any stage; that on the other hand, sheets of paper are compressed together and laminated under pressure by using heat with the chemicals namely unstable solutions of Melamine Formaldehyde or Phenol Formaldehyde which are in process materials; that these solutions are not plastic and were held as non-excisable by the Assistant Collector; that this was also the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). He also submitted that in the present matter there was no dispute about classification of the goods as the allegation against the respondent was that they had not cleared the goods as per approved classification list.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe from the impugned order that the respondents had filed a classification list No. 673/87 which was approved by the Assistant Collector by classifying the impugned product under sub-heading 3920.31 of CETA. Their goods were seized along with vehicle on 28-4-1988 as they had cleared the same classifying the same under sub-heading of 4811.30. Further other goods being loaded in the truck was also seized and a show cause notice was issued for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 18,76,800.17 p. in respect of seized goods and the goods cleared between 30-3-1988 and 28-4-1988, for confiscating the seized goods and for imposing penalty etc. It is thus apparent that the proceedings started against the respondents on the question of wrong classification of goods alone. As far as the classification of the product is concerned, the matter is no more res integra as the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Wood Polymers Ltd., supra, following the judgment in the case of CCE v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. – 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) has held that paper based decorative laminated sheets “are classifiable under Heading 3920.31/3920.37 of the New Tariff.” There is no substance in the” contention of the learned Advocate that they were not using any plastic material as Phenol Formaldehyde or Melamine Formaldehyde are nothing but plastic. The fact that in process material was held to be non-excisable does not mean that the material ceases to be plastic. In these circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, the impugned product is classifiable under sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37 and not under sub-heading 4823.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. As the Collector had classified the product under Heading 4823.90 he dropped further proceedings as alleged in the show cause notice. We, therefore, remand the matter to him to readjudicate the matter in the light of the fact that the impugned product is to be classified under sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37 of CETA.
4. The appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.