G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. The dispute is in respect of the following items :
(i) glass fibre and asbestos based compregs, having trade names per-maglass, permacid, permarc (rigid sheets);
(ii) mouldings and components having trade names permaglass, per-macid, and permarc (but excluding dough moulding compounds and sheet moulding compounds and components and articles made there-
(iii) the articles, in which glass reinforcement yarn predominated by weight.
2. Shri Nambirajan, arguing for the appellants, submitted that the dispute in respect of the classification of the above items, has been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Engg. and Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) as well as in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C). He submitted that laminated sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but not under 22F(4) as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (supra) and similarly Supreme Court has taken the view that the articles made of glass fibre are classifiable under Item 68 but not under 22F(4) in the case of Mahindra Engg. & Chemical Product Ltd.
3. Shri D.S. Negi, ld. S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded the factual position.
4. We find that the appellants’ counsel is right in pointing out that the issue on classification in respect of above items, has already been resolved by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, we hold that the items, in question, are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but not under 22F(4). Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.