ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the eligibility of the Chromo Art Board which has been on test found to be Chromo Art Paper to the benefit of Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987.
2. The learned Collector Appeals in his order has observed that the appellants procure duty base paper and converted into Chromo Art Paper and that the Chemical Examiner has opined that the sample consists of white sheet of paper glossy on one surface composed of chemical pulp and coated on one side with inorganic matter and that it is Chromo Art Paper. He has held the benefit of notification is not available only in respect of Chromo Art Board and since the appellant’s goods are found to be Chromo Art Paper, the benefit would be available. The revenue has filed the appeal against this finding of the learned Collector Appeals. In the grounds of appeal, the plea taken is that the Chromo Art Paper and Chromo Art Board are one and the same item and therefore benefit of Notification No. 49/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 should not have been allowed.
3. The learned JDR, Shri S. Arulswamy for the department has pleaded that the appellants themselves have filed classification list separately for the goods in question under two categories (i.e.) grammage upto 225 gms. as paper and beyond that as Board. He has pleaded that the sample drawn was in respect of item which was described as Board and therefore benefit of notification should not have been allowed. The ground taken before us is that Chromo Art Paper and Chromo Art Board are one and the same item of goods while it is seen from the plea of the revenue that the Chromo Art Paper and Chromo Art Board have been classified separately treated them as two distinct commodities. We, therefore find that the grounds taken on their own pleadings is not sustainable.
4. The learned Consultant Shri C. Chidambaram for the respondents has pleaded that once the goods have been found to be Chromo Art Paper by the Chemical Examiner while answering the specific query of the department endorsed on the test memo sent to him (i.e.) whether the goods answer to the description Chromo Art Board. There could be no doubt left as to the nature of the goods that the Chemical Examiner found was ‘Chromo Art Paper’. He has pleaded that the reference to the notification would also show that the Paper and Board have been differently treated in terms of the notification. We find force in the plea of the learned Consultant and hold that the learned lower authority has rightly allowed the benefit of notification taking into consideration the test results of the Chemical Examiner and going by the wording of the notification which distinguishes between Paper and Board. The appeal of the revenue is therefore dismissed.