Full Judgment
3. The dispute is in respect of classification of the product namely aluminium foils discs. Whether the item is classifiable under 76.07 as claimed by the assessee or under 83.09 as per department is an issue to be considered in this case. According to the party, the item is known in the trade parlance as aluminium foils only and not as a stopper and cap etc. and, accordingly, it is appropriately classifiable under 76.07 and in support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Garware Nylon Ltd., reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.).
4. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Negi countering the arguments drew our attention to the finding given by the Collector (Appeals) observing that since the thickness of the item in question exceeds 0.2 mm. it is not classifiable under 76.07 since the description of the item tallies with the description in the respective Tariff. It was countered by the assessee that if the thickness does not exceed 0.2 mm., it falls within 76.07 and if thickness exceeds 0.2 mm. it may be falling under 76.06 and at any rate under 83.09.
5. Since we are hearing the stay application, it is not possible for us to decide the issue of classification unless relevant tariff entries and case law are to be looked into in detail and that can be done only at the time of regular hearing. At present, we are not convinced that strong prima facie case is in favour of the party to grant stay as prayed for. However, taking over all facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice will be met if the applicants are asked to pay Rs. 45,000/- on or before 31-3-1998. Subject to compliance, the balance amount is dispensed with and recovery proceedings are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Ordered accordingly. The matter to come up for reporting compliance on 3-4-1998.