ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/97 (H) CE dated 12.3.97 holding that the copper clad laminates is classifiable under sub-heading 7410.21 and the Revenue’s claim for reclassification under SH 8546.00 has been held to be not proper and correct. He has noted that he is giving the decision in terms of judicial discipline by following the CEGAT’s judgement on this very issue rendered in the case of PRATAP RAJASTAN COPPER FOILS & LAMINATES LTD VS CCE – 1989 (44) ELT 775 and CCE Vs METRO WOOD WORKS & OTHERS and BAKELITE HYLAM – 1989 (43) ELT 660 which have confirmed the classification of copper clad laminates under heading 74.06 of CETA’85 as copper foils.
2. Revenue in this appeal has taken a short plea that the matter is agitated before the Supreme Court and as appeal is pending against CEGAT judgement rendered in PRATAP RAJASTAN COPPER FOILS (supra), therefore appeal be allowed or kept pending till the Apex Court decides the matter.
3. We have heard Ld.DR Shri Jayachandran & the Ld.Counsel Ms.Mythili for respondents.
4. Ld.DR reiterates the grounds of appeal for classification of the item under chapter heading 85.46 in terms of Order-in-Original and contends that department has filed civil appeal No. 3093/89 against CEGAT’s order and therefore he seeks for either keeping the case pending or deciding the case in Revenue’s favour or referring the matter to the Larger Bench.
5. Ld.Counsel Ms. Mythili submits that there is no stay of the operation of the Tribunal judgements and in terms of Tribunal’s practice and judicial discipline, this bench is required to follow its own earlier order with regard to classification. She submits that the prayer for keeping the case pending or for referring to Larger Bench does not arise as there are not contra judgements on this issue.
6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Revenue as the Commissioner has followed the Tribunal judgement on classification of copper clad laminates rendered in the case of PRATAP RAJASTAN COPPER FOILS & LAMINATES Vs CCE cited supra. Further, we notice that the Commissioner has also referred to appellant’s own case cited above wherein also a similar view was expressed in CCE Vs METRO WOOD WORKS & OTHERS and BAKELITE HYLAM 1989 (43) ELT 660. As there is no stay granted by the Apex Court against these orders, the judicial discipline requires that we have to follow the Tribunal judgement. There are no contra judgements on the same for referring the matter to Larger Bench. Therefore, respectively following the Tribunal judgements cited by the Commissioner, we confirm the impugned order by dismissing this appeal. Order accordingly.
(Pronounced & dictated in open court)