ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. In the subject appeal of Revenue, we are concerned with the question whether the Sandwitch Paper manufactured by the respondents herein is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987. The said notification excludes seven types of products. The last Item No. (vii) reads as under :-
“(vii) Products consisting of sheets of paper or paper board impregnated, coated or covered with plastics compressed together in one or more operations.”
2. Question to be determined therefore is whether the paper in question is impregnated, coated or covered with plastic compressed together in one or more operations. Both the lower authorities have found that the said paper is neither impregnated nor coated, nor covered with plastics. Two layers of paper are merely stuck together by using LDPE plastic as an adhesive. In arriving at this finding Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the meaning of the word ” Impregnate’ in various dictionaries as mentioned in para 11 of the impugned order. He has come to conclusion that the paper in question is not covered by the excluded categories of paper mentioned under the said notification and hence the benefit of the notification has been extended. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.
3. Ld. JDR Shri S.K. Das arguing in support of Revenue’s appeal submits that by the process of manufacture of Sandwitch Paper in question it is apparent that the molten LDPE plastic comes in between two layers of paper. Therefore it is urged that LDPE in molten form impregnates the two layers of paper. Hence, the product in question will be an impregnated paper. Therefore the benefit of the Notification should be denied.
4. Opposing the contentions, ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Kapoor submits that it cannot be called impregnated paper as according to the definition of the word * Impregnate’ as given in the impugned order the main characteristic is that the medium which impregnates the paper should “saturate” or “fill” interstices of the paper. That is not so in the present case. Had that been so the medium would have come out on the other side. Therefore the finding of the lower authorities to the effect that it is not an impregnated paper is correct on facts. Hence he has urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We have gone through the impugned order. We agree with the submission of the ld. Advocate that there is no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities. The definition of the word “Impregnate’ implies that molten LDPE plastic comes out of two layers of paper. That is not the position in the instant case. Obviously the molten medium here has been utilised for the purpose of sticking the two layers of paper together. Hence, we do not find any substance in Revenue’s appeal. We reject the same.