- (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-manufacturer.
(2.) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of particle boards. It commenced the production in the year 1979. The first clearances were made in March of that year. The appellant sought to take advantage of the Exemption Notification No. 55 of 1979 issued by the central government under Rule 8 (1 of the central Excise Rules, 1944. This notification exempted "plywood and boards specified in column (2 of the table hereto annexed and falling under Item 16-B of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944 from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified against the corresponding entry in column (3 of the said table. " The table appended to the said notification reads as follows: "table
(3.) The appellant's case was that the particle boards manufactured by it are "unveneered particle boards" within the meaning of Item 6 of the aforesaid table and, therefore, totally exempt from duty. This case was accepted by the department. A few months later, the appellant started manufacturing what are described as "melamine faced particle boards". The appellant claimed the benefit of the aforesaid exemption notification with respect to melamine faced particle boards as well, to which the authorities did not agree. According to them, the product fell and was dutiable under Tariff Item 68. The appellant accepted the said position and accordingly a classification list was filed and approved on 9/1/1980. On 17/6/1980, the Collector of central Excise issued a notice under Section 35-A of the Act proposing to revise the order of 'the Assistant Collector dated 9/1/1980. According to him, the melamine faced g particle boards (MFPBs) were classifiable under Tariff Item 16-B but were not entitled to the benefit of exemption provided by the Notification No. 55 of 1979 aforesaid with the result that the said boards became liable to a duty higher than the one prescribed under Tariff Item 68. The appellant showed cause whereupon the Collector dropped the proceedings. He held that the MFPBs fell under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 16-B. On this occasion, however, the appellant questioned the order of the Collector by filing a revision before the central government wherein he put forward a composite claim. According to it, MFPBs were no doubt classifiable under Tariff Item 16-B but at the same time, they were entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 55 of 1979 aforesaid. The idea evidently was to obtain total exemption from tax in this manner. The tribunal examined the said claim but rejected it. The tribunal agreed with the Collector that MFPBs were properly classifiable and dutiable under Tariff Item 68.;