ORDER
G. Sankaran, President
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 182/Cal.I/89 dated 28-7-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. The issue arising for determination in this appeal is the classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 of paper based decorative laminated sheets. The lower authorities have classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3920.37 of the Schedule as rigid laminated plastic sheets negativing the appellants’ claim for classification under sub-heading No. 4823.90.
3. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, Counsel, for the appellants and Shri S. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent-Collector.
4. Shri Agarwal submitted that the issue stands concluded by this Tribunal’s decision in the case of M/s Amit Polymers and Composites Ltd., Hyderabad v. CCE Hyderabad – 1989 (20) ECR 454 which was followed in Order Nos. 552 to 572/89-C dated 29-9-1989 in M/s Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. CCE. It has been held that paper based decorative laminated sheets containing plastics were classifiable under subheading No. 4818.90 upto 28-2-1988 and sub-heading No. 4823.90 on and from 1-3-1988. Shri Agarwal relied on these decisions and prayed that the appeal might be allowed.
5. Opposing the said prayer Shri Chakraborty sought to distinguish the present case from the cases already decided. His submission was that the Chapter note 1(f) served to exclude the present goods from the scope of Chapter 48 of the Schedule. This note provides as follows:-
“Paper – reinforced stratified plastic sheeting, or one layer of paper or paper board coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness, or articles of such materials, other than wall coverings of heading No. 48.14 (Chapter 39)”.
The contention was that the present goods were multi-layered and that the prescription that plastics should constitute more than half the total thickness applied only to goods consisting of one layer of paper or paper board coated or covered with a layer of plastics. These goods are paper – reinforced stratified plastic sheeting and, being multi-layered, was not affected by the said prescription.
6. We have considered the submissions and do not find force in Shri Chakraborty’s contentions. The effect of Chapter note l(f) had been considered by the Tribunal in the ease of Amit Polymers (supra). It is seen from the impugned order that the appellants had contended that in the finished product 32-40% was comprised of resin while the rest was comprised of paper by weight and thickness. It was further contended that the thickness of paper was predominant in each layer and in the finished/product. There is no rebuttal of these contentions. In fact, the Collector (Appeals) proceeds on the basis that, in the present case, the weight of resin was less than that of paper, (of course he holds that, even so, the goods have the essential character of articles of plastics, and not of paper). The Collector (Appeals) has held, and the learned DR reiterated, the view that the present goods are paper – reinforced stratified plastic sheeting. It is evident that to be so called, there must be a plastic sheeting which is reinforced by paper. “Sheeting” has not been defined in the Chapter notes to Chapter 39 but it is apparent that sheeting is that from which sheets are cut out. And, “sheet” has been defined in Chapter note 10 to Chapter 39. It has not been shown by the Revenue that the present goods are comprised of layers of such sheets reinforced by layers of paper. The manufacturing process described earlier shows that paper is impregnated with resin resulting in resin impregnated paper. Such resin-impregnated sheets of paper, together with similarly (resin) impregnated sheet of design paper, are then laminated in a hydraulic press applying pressure and heat to make a laminated sheet. During this process, the resin passes through the pores of paper and acts as a binder between the paper sheets. It is thus seen that the goods are more appropriately to be termed as resin-reinforced paper sheets and not paper-reinforced plastic sheets or, as the Revenue will have it, paper-stratified plastic sheeting. In the event, Chapter 48 would be more appropriate than Chapter 39.
7. Apart from the above considerations, the goods involved and the process of manufacture in the Amit Polymers case and the present case are similar. We do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion in the present case. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the goods herein be classified under Chapter 48 in accordance with the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Amit Polymers followed by the decision in the case of Meghdoot Laminart (supra).