Rigid plastic sheet classification bars exemption, and a limited remand cannot reopen unremanded tariff classification issues.

Fibreglass reinforced plastic sheet was treated as a rigid plastic sheet because the National Test House certificate recorded the modulus of elasticity in tension as 36000 kgf/cm2, with no contrary technical evidence or request for retest; the exemption under Notification No. 149/82-C.E. was therefore unavailable. The remand was confined to clarification of the test certificate, so the appellants could not reopen the separate classification dispute under Tariff Item 15A(2) and seek classification under Tariff Item 68. The demand and penalty were sustained, and the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fibreglass reinforced plastic sheet was a rigid plastic sheet so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 149/82-C.E. dated 22-4-1982 and sustain the duty demand and penalty. (ii) Whether the appellants could, at the stage of appeal after remand limited to clarification of the test certificate, reopen the question of classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) and seek classification under Tariff Item 68.

Issue (i): Whether the fibreglass reinforced plastic sheet was a rigid plastic sheet so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 149/82-C.E. dated 22-4-1982 and sustain the duty demand and penalty.

Analysis: The decisive material remained the National Test House certificate, which stated the modulus of elasticity in tension as 36000 kgf/cm2 in both words and figures. No contrary technical evidence or credible basis for treating the certificate as mistaken or ambiguous was produced. The appellants also did not seek retest when the results were communicated. On that material, the product was treated as rigid plastic sheet. Once so classified on the facts found, the exemption under Notification No. 149/82-C.E. was unavailable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could, at the stage of appeal after remand limited to clarification of the test certificate, reopen the question of classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) and seek classification under Tariff Item 68.

Analysis: The remand was confined to obtaining clarification on the test certificate and re-adjudicating the matter on that limited aspect. The classification dispute was not part of the remand directions, and permitting a fresh classification controversy would enlarge the scope of the remand beyond what had been directed. On that procedural footing, the plea to reopen classification was not accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, with the demand and penalty sustained and the exemption claim rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the technical evidence conclusively supports rigidity of the product and the remand is confined to a limited factual clarification, the party cannot both defeat the exemption on the basis of the clarified test result and expand the remand to reopen an unremanded classification dispute.

---