Full Judgment
2. When the matters were called, none of the Respondents were present in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard ld. DR who submitted that Notification No. 341/76-Cus. provided a concessional rate of duty of paper and paper board specifically mentioned in Sl. No. 98 of the table annexed to the Notification. The benefit of Notification was available, inter alia, to multilayered paper board or paste board. He, further, submitted that the goods imported by the Respondents were undisputedly coated on both sides. The Notification does not mention that the multilayered paper board would be coated; that coating is a process subsequent to coming into existence of multilayered paper board and if the intention of the law maker was to extend the benefit to coated multi-layered board, it would have been specifically so mentioned in the notification. In absence of any such specific mention of coated multilayered paper board, the benefit of Notification cannot be extended. He also submitted that the imported goods have been specifically described as art board and not as paste board or multilayered board. Art board is not specifically mentioned in the Notification No. 341/76-Cus. and accordingly, the Collector (Appeals) should not have allowed the benefit of the Notification to the Respondents. He, finally, submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision in the case of C.C. v. Kamal Traders reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 43 which decision has not been accepted by the department as appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court; that this fact is mentioned by the Collector (Appeals) also in the impugned order.
3. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and perused the record. It is not in dispute that what was imported by the Respondents was multilayered paste coated art board. The Notification provides partial exemption from payment of duty to the multilayered board and as the product, imported by the Respondents was multilayered board, the benefit of Notification cannot be denied merely because these were coated on both sides. The other plea of the ld. DR was that it is an Art Board. This plea was also raised in the case of Kamal Traders (supra) and the Tribunal held that the main characteristics of Art Board as per its definition is that it is coated on both sides. Coating on both sides can be even on past board and multilayered boards and no restriction has been provided in the definition of multilayered paper board or paste boards that they cannot be coated on both sides. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Kamal Traders case (supra). The Revenue has not produced any decision of the Supreme Court setting aside the order in Kamal Traders case.
Following the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected with the direction that claim for refund will be finalised after considering the question of unjust enrichment as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Indus, v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.).