Judgment:
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government against the Order-in-Appeal mentioned above. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the revision application was transferred to it in terms of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.
2. The appellant's claim for re-assessment of, (and consequential refund of duty paid on), a consignment of cartridge paper of substance above 85 gms/m2 under heading No. 48.01/21(3) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [as against classification under Heading No. 48.01/21(1) made by the Department), was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate Collector. The latter, in his impugned order of 24-7-1982 has held that even if the grammage is not considered as the dividing criterion for differentiating drawing paper from off-set printing paper, so long as the goods are described in the invoice as "drawing paper" they cannot be classified under Heading No.48.01/21(3) as "other printing and writing paper".
3. We have heard Shri Anil Balani, Advocate with Shri L.U. Balani, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vinit Kumar, S.D.R. for the respondent.
4. The classification of cartridge paper of 150 gm/m2 carne up for consideration of this Tribunal in Appeal CD(SB) (T)A.No. 1562/81-D Collector of Customs, Bombay V. Pan Overseas Traders, Bombay, disposed of by Order No. 782/83-D, dated 20-12-1983. In that order, the Tribunal observed that the tariff entry did hot envisage any distinction between printing and writing paper of or below 85 gm/m2 and that above 85 gm/m2. it also took note of a previous decision of this Tribunal in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad 1983 ETR 503 holding that the dividing line of 85 gm/m2 was not a rigid one but only indicated that for purposes of printing it was normally below 85 gm/n/ Above 85 gm/m2, the paper was usually used for drawing.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held in the Pan Overseas Traders case that the correct classification was under Heading No. 48.01/21(3).
5. While the counsel for the appellants relied on the aforesaid decisions, the Sr. D.R. submitted that in the present case the paper was, according to the invoice, drawing paper and not printing or writing paper. The aforesaid decision was arrived at, as was clear from the order itself, "in the absence of any other material." In the present case, the evidence in the shape of invoice description was available. But, as the counsel for the appellants pointed out, the word ""write", according to the Webster Universal Dictionary (Unabridged International Edition) means: "to engrave, draw, write". Therefore, it would appear that drawing paper would fall in the generic description of "writing paper".Sunrise Agencies V. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1986(26) ELT 286, The goods in dispute there was art paper which the Tribunal found, was high grade printing and writing paper. Since the goods were different," the decision is of no application to the present case.
7. In the circumstances, we hold that the subject goods fell under Heading No. 48.01/21(3) as claimed by the appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.