ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various products. They submitted two classification lists. Classification List No. 31/MRG-II/85-86/C was effective from 6-11-1985. The second Classification List No. 41/MRG-II/85-86/C was effective from 1-1-1986. The appellants claimed classification of the product under Tariff Item 68 of the then CET. The Department alleged that it was classifiable under Tariff Item 16B. After examining his submissions as also the test report of the sample, the Department confirmed the classification of compreg board chairs, seats and backs as also of high density compreg board, seats and components, medium density compreg board, seats and components and compreg chairs under T.I. 16B. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the present appeal before us.
2. None appeared for the appellants. The appellants have, however, sent written submissions and have requested for considering their case on the basis of the written submissions.
3. Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR appears for the respondent Commissioner and submits that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 before 28-2-1982 and included the wood based compreg board. In support of his contention he cited and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Permali Wallace Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 306 (S.C.). The ld. SDR submits that the case is fully covered in favour of the Revenue and prays that the appeal may be rejected.
4. Considered the submissions made by the ld. SDR. Perused the written submissions and the case law cited and relied upon by the respondents. We find that, though, the order of the Apex Court cited and relied upon is slightly on a different issue, however, it appears to have examined the classification of wood based compreg board before 28-2-1982 and on or after 28-2-1982. The Apex Court observed that:
“The appellants make wood based compreg board. Prior to 28-2-1982 the said board was exigible to excise duty and classified under residuary entry 68. With effect from 28-2-1982, entry 16B was amended and the said Board fell under the amended entry. For removals subsequent to 28-2-1982 the said board was charged duty on the basis that it was classifiable under entry 16B. It is the case of the appellants that since the said Board had been prior to the amendment of entry 16B, it ought to have been classified under entry 68.”
5. From the above, it is clear that with effect from 28-2-1982 wood based compreg board was classifiable under Tariff Item 16B of the then CET. Precisely, this is what the lower authorities have done. In this view of the matter we do not see any legal infirmity in the order passed by the lower authorities. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.