1984 (6) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l other goods, not elsewhere specified). The appellants stated at the very outset during the hearing before us today that as the rate of basic customs duty was the same under all the three Customs Tariff headings [Headings 48.01/21(1), 39.01/06 and 39.07] considered in the proceedings at different stages, they would not press for re-classification of the goods for basic customs duty purposes. 2. A sample of the subject goods imported by the appellants was available in the appeal file. The appellants stated that the goods were subjected to test by the Custom House Laboratory. The test report stated that the sample was composed of a thin plastic polyvinyl chloride tissue and a thick paper which was coated on one side with carbon, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....late Collector classified them under Item 17(2) C.E.T. on the ground that the wording of this Tariff item covered treated papers also. 3. Coming to the merits of their case, the appellants argued, by reference to the test report as well as by showing the sample of the goods, that they were a composite product. They stated that stencil was cut on the P.V.C. tissue or plastic film but the thick paper backing to the film also played a functional role inasmuch as it provided support to the thin plastic film and prevented it from being wrinkled or ruptured during handling in the electronic stencil cutting machine. In the circumstances, argued the appellants, the principle of classification of such composite articles for the purpose of co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal). His alternative plea was that classification under Item 17(2) C.E.T., as ordered by the Appellate Collector may be maintained since at least one of the constituent materials of the goods was paper. At this time the Bench noticed that in their Tariff Advice No. 25/81, dated 27-2-1981 (as printed on page 329 of the CENCUS Central Excise Tariff, 1983-84) the Central Board of Excise & Customs had stated that duplicating stencil paper, which was a composite article consisting of coated tissue paper, carbon paper and backing paper with a head strip and also printed scale and other instructions on the stencil indicating its use itself; was correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the C.E.T. Attention of the Department's Representative was dra....