Judgment:
1. This is a revision application before the Government of India filed by the petitioner against Order No. 9-MP of 1971 dated 10th February, 1971 passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this application has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.
2. The point at issue is regarding correct classification of metallised yarn which is being manufactured by the appellants by the process of cutting into fine lengths of less than 0.14 mm metallo-plastic films, which they were importing from abroad. The lower authorities classified their product as synthetic yarn under Item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants have urged that thin strips being manufactured by them, is not yarn within the meaning of the Tariff Item 18, that the orders passed by the lower authorities suffer for want of application of mind inasmuch as they have been passed pursuant to decision already taken by the superior authorities as contained in a Trade Notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise concerned, and further, that the order of lower authorities merits to be struck down in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court.
3. Now before us Shri K.K. Kapoor, learned Consultant for the appellant has cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vac Met Corporation in Spl. C.A. No. 780 of 1970, dated 28th April, 1971 and the order of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Superintendent of Central Excise and Other v. Vac Met Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 1985 (22) ELT 330, copies of which have been supplied to us. Apart from these decisions, reference is also made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Amritlal Lalubhai v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad 1985 (21) ELT 908.
4. Smt. Dolly Saxena concedes that all the above decisions are against the Revenue.
5. We find that when a decision was taken in the case of Amritlal Lalubhai on 6th April, 1985 (supra), this Bench had before it only the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 780 of 1970 in which it was held that metallised yarn was not manufactured out of man-made fibres and, therefore, the same fell under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 18 ibid. It was noted that SLPs were pending before the Supreme Court against this decision, but, since there was no contrary judgment of any other High Court or the Supreme Court, it was held by the Tribunal that the goods in question were liable to duty under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 18. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has pronounced its Orders on the SLPs filed before it on this issue agreeing with the reasoning and the conclusion urged by the Gujarat High Court and dismissing the appeals.
5A. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we have to hold that the impugned goods fall for classification under Item No. 15A(2) and not Item No. 18 ibid.