Full Judgment
2. When the case was taken up, Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, appeared on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
However, they have made a request for adjournment in their letter dtd.
10-7-1994 stating "that their Sr. Officer looking after the excise matter is going out of station for his family religious matter as per his pre-arranged programme his services are not available to the respondents before the Bench". After considering this request the Bench rejected the same and proceeded to decide the case on merits in the absence of the respondents. Accordingly, we heard Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, on behalf of the appellants and perused the record.
3. Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the period involved in the present appeal relates to 12-7-1972 to 31-3-1976. He highlighted that the Assistant Collector classified the subject goods under Tariff Item 59 against the claim of the respondents under Tariff Item 22F, but this Tariff Item 22F came into existence from 16-3-1976 as introduced in the Budget for the year 1976-77. On being asked categorically, as to whether there was any other competiting entry, that is to say, corresponding to Item 22F, he submitted that there was no such entry and such goods to be classified under Tariff Item 59 prior to 16-3-1976. On merits he submitted that according to the report of National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, the subject goods should be classified under Tariff Item 59 and cited the case of Amartara Limited, Bombay v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 523 (Bom.), wherein electric insulating tapes - "Rigid grade PVC non-adhesive tape" having no property of insulation were held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 4. Considered. At the outset, we agree with the submission made by the learned SDR that the Tariff Item 22F came into existence on 16-3-1976.
Accordingly, we hold that the subject goods fall under Tariff Item 59 before the insertion of Tariff Item 22F on 16-3-1976. However, for the remaining period, we find that the findings of the Collector (Appeals) are correct. The said report of National Physical Laboratory does not improve the case of the Revenue inasmuch as the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist is very categorical on this point. In his report dated 4th August, 1980 he has clearly opined that "Each of the three samples is unvarnished and is in the form of narrow strip, woven entirely with glass filament yarns". The case of Amartara Limited, supra, is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. From this case we find that the applicability of Tariff Item 22F was not the issue before the Court. In the result, we set aside the Order of the Collector (Appeals) and classify the subject goods under Tariff Item 59 for the period from 12-7-1972 to 15-3-1976. However, for the remaining period we uphold the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the subject product will fall under Tariff Item 22F. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.