ORDER
Shri S.S. SEKHON
1. The appellant has filed this appeal for classification of his product “Post It Memo Boards” which has been confirmed under Chapter 4811.20 as ‘gunned or adhesive paper or paper board’ by the lower authorities, instead of Chapter 4820.00 as an article of stationery as claimed by the appellants.
2. We have heard Learned Advocate, for the appellants and Learned SDR for the Department, and after considering the submissions find:-
a) After examination by the lower authorities the entity under consideration is determined to be, having a function of a bulletin/Notice Board. It consists of a gummed or adhesive paper/paper board having arrangements on the other side to stick it on to a plain surface of a wall, cupboard etc. which is packed inside an envelope with a window. Memos on paper, notices etc. could be stuck on the gummed/adhesive surface which faces the viewer. The function is rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) as that of as a Bulletin/Notice Board.
b) The appellants have admitted that it is used for Posting, Notes, Messages, Artwork, Student papers etc and it is not used for any purpose for which adhesive paper or paper boards are used and this functional aspect of the product in question should be taken into account. They relied upon the decision in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd., 1986 (25) ELT 473 (SC) where the Apex court has held that:-
“a mental association in the mind of the customer, between the article and the need it supplies in his life”.
The same submission is made in the course of appeal today, which should help to destablish the finding of Commissioner (Appeals), who after going through the definition of article of ‘stationery’ as per the dictionary and after considering the Atul Glass Industries Ltd., case (supra) has come to a conclusion, that in the present case the primary function or rather the only function of the ‘Post It Memo Board’ is to hold memos, notes and the like. Hence it is nothing but a bulletin/notice board. It performs the function of a Bulletin/Notice Board which, which with no stretch of imagination can be called an article of stationery. We do not find any ground taken in appeal to upset this finding of facts by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
c) The appellants have relied upon many decisions which stipulates that classification of the goods should be on the basis of ‘popular sense’ in the absence of a definition in the fiscal statute. However they have not put forth any material evidence, that how is the item understood as an article of ‘stationery’, to support their classification under Chapter 4820. On a question from the Bench, the Learned Advocates submitted that the item is understood as an article of ‘stationery’ by the people who deal with it and the present entity was used as Office stationery to display paper samples, collections of paper items and other information in offices etc., as submitted by them in their appeal memo. However no evidence to substantiate this claim and challenge the finding arrived by the lower authorities, that it serves as a Notice/Bulletin/Board as arrived by the lower authorities after Inspection of the goods, has been produced before us to upset those findings of facts. Therefore in the absence of any material we cannot find that the entity under classification is to be known as understood as an article of ‘stationery’ by the people who deal with the same.
(d) (i) We have carefully considered the Heading 48.11 which includes therein all kinds of paper/paper Board coated covered etc. and the Heading notes of HSN provide that entities under 4811 include paper/paper boards of all kinds and the items excluded do not cover this entity being used for serving the purposes of a Notices/Bulletin Board, as arrived at by the lower authorities.
(ii) On the other hand nothing in the HSN noes under heading 48.20 would enthuse us to include the subject entity under that heading. The HSN Notes under 48.20 interalia proved that :
“Articles of this heading sometimes contain a considerable amount of printed matter but are classified in this heading (and not in Chapter 49) provided that the articles are essentially for completion in manuscript or typescript. Similarly exercise books may have handwriting copy printed on each page. Some other articles may be printed with characters etc. merely incidental to their use.
The goods of this heading may be bound with materials other than paper (e.g. leather, plastics or textile material) and have reinforcements or fittings of metal, plastics etc.”
On a question from the Bench it was fairly admitted by the learned Advocates that no writing/typing of any matter could be made on the entity. Therefore we cannot accept its classification under 48.20 as claimed.
(e) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Note 9 of Chapter 48, which specifically exclude loose sheets/Board from heading 48.20 found that applying note 9 of Chapter Heading 48 the goods which are loose sheets in the size 18 x 23″ and are printed, with each packet contains 72 sheets would not be classifiable under 48.20. He also observed that the appellants are not able to explain and go give reasons why Note 9 of Chapter 48 was not applicable. No such explanation has been given to us. Therefore we find no reasons to upset the findings of Commissioner (Appeals).
3. In view of our findings, we find no reasons to upset the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Pronounced on 05/03/2001)