9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composite articles are not eligible for exemption under Notification 182/82, CE dated 11-5-1982. (2) seeking to classify 5-ply laminated films under T.I. 27 (7). No question was raised regarding classification of 3-ply laminates. The appellants replied that 5-ply and 7-ply laminated films are known as such in the trade and never known as aluminium foil and hence they cannot be classified under T.I. 27 (7), that aluminium foil is covered on both sides with plastic material and hence it cannot be held that aluminium foil has been backed by either paper or any other reinforcing material, and that all the items are eligible for the benefit of Notn. 182/82 CE dated 11-5-1982 as they are all known as plastic articles. (3) After adjudication the Asst. Collector passed an order in May 1985 classifying (a) 3-ply and 7-ply laminated film and plastic collapsible tubes under T.I. 68 but denying the benefit of Notn. 182/82 C.E., dated 11-5-1982 on the ground that these items are not solely made out of material falling under T.I. 15A (i) (b) in respect of 5-ply laminate he held that it is an intermediate product in continuous process without removal and is not liable to duty under T.I. 27 (7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed by Notn. 182/82. (9) Against this order, the assessees filed an appeal before the CCE in July 1985. The Collector, by order dated 29-10-1985, rejected the appeal and against this order, E/A No. 265/86-C has been filed. (10) In the meanwhile, a fresh show cause notice was issued in June 1985 for proposed classification of 7-ply laminated sheets under T.I. 27(7) instead of T.I. 68 and the classification was done accordingly by the Asst. Collector which was upheld by the Collector in October 1987. Aggrieved by the classification of 7-ply laminates under T.1.27(7), E/A 239/88 has been filed. (11) E/2215/89-C - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8-6-1989 upholding the order of the lower authority confirming demand of duty pursuant to the order of the Asst. Collector of classification of 7-ply laminates under T.I. 27(7). (12) The entire dispute in all 3 appeals relates to the period from August 1984 to January 1986. (13) We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal learned counsel for the appellants and Shri M.S. Arora for the respondents. (14) Learned counsel takes us through the process of manufacture of the products: (i) The 3-ply laminated film consists of two la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out from the machine in the first stage. In the second stage, remaining layers are added to the 3 layer laminate as obtained above. The 3-layer laminate obtained from 1st stage of manufacture is mounted at one end. This goes to extruder No. 1 where aluminium foil is laminated to it with a co-polymer extruded film from the extruder. This 5-layered film then goes upto extruder No. 2 in a continuous process where a LDPE film is bonded to the "nil" side of laminate with an extruded film of co-polymer in between. Thus aluminium foil gets sandwiched between different layers of plastics and paper on both sides in a continuous process. SLITTING : The 7-ply laminates as produced above are in rolls of large widths of around 800 mm. These rolls are slit on "SLITTING MACHINES" into rolls of smaller widths to suit various sizes of tubes. PRINTING : The slit rolls are printed on a 'Printing Machine' as per designs of various tubes. TUBE MAKING: The printed laminated rolls are loaded on the 'Fully Automatic' Tube Making Machines. The laminate is first cut to required size. The piece is rolled and sealed at the side to form the body of the tube. The tube body is then moulded on to High Density ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the CE Tariff only in 1975 while the Geep Flashlight case pertained to the year 1972. 18. The alternate argument, of the counsel is that if the appellants products' are held to fall outside the purview of T.I. 68, then they would fall under T.I. 15 and they would be entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification 149/82, dated 22-4-1982. 19. He contends that the goods are not aluminium foil for the reasons that (a) they are of less than recognised thickness (b) they are sandwiched between paper and plastic, not backed. 20. In reply, the learned DR relies upon the Geep Flashlight case wherein it was held that articles of plastics must be made wholly of commodities commercially known as plastics. Regarding thickness of products to satisfy the requirement of T.I. 27 (7), he would argue that backing thickness cannot be included as backing is separate. He cites the decision in the case of Uma Laminates (1984 (17) E.L.T. 187). He submits that backing means reinforcing as the purpose of backing is to give strength and re-inforcement and that there is no difference between backing and sandwiching and the products are backed, and merit classification under T.I. 27 (7). 21. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5296, 5297,5653 and 5654 of 79 held that there cannot be two adjudication orders on the same issue at two different times by two different authorities under the same Act. The only difference between this of case and the present case is that the Assistant Collector who adjudicated the matter in the first instance and later sought to "correct" what he felt was an "error" in the said order of adjudication by a second show cause notice followed by another order of adjudication on that notice was the same. This difference, if anything, makes the situation worse from the point of view of the respondent. The proper remedy against the first order of adjudication, if the Revenue felt that it was not correct was to file an appeal to the proper authority. We are clear in our mind that the Assistant Collector could not have assumed powers of readjudication and proceeded to readjudicate the matter even though he may have followed the procedure of issue of show cause notice etc. 26. In the aforesaid circumstances the order-in-original dated 7-10-1985 and the relative order-in-appeal dated 27-10-1987 are not sustainable. Appeal No. 2215/89-C 27. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
