- (1.) These appeals are preferred against two orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the CEGAT') dated 21-10-1997 made in Appeal No. E/4412/95-SB (WR) and an order dated 16-7-1997 made by the CEGAT refusing to review/clarify its earlier order dated 21-10-1997. Both the appeals arise out of the same dispute.
(2.) The appellant in the above appeals is manufacturing (a) printed polyester films backed with paper; (b) printed polyester films backed with polythene films; and (c) printed polyester films backed with aluminium foils; all of which are used either as labels, pouches or wrappers. It is the contention of the appellant that by virtue of the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') dated 23-7-1986 and clarificatory Circular issued by the Board dated 7-8-1987; the aforesaid products of the appellant are to be classified as the products of the printing industry subject to duty under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, the appellants contend that their products are entitled to the benefit of duty exemption available by virtue of Notification Nos. 122/75 and 234/82 as applicable at the relevant time. It is the common case of the parties that the view taken by the Board in the abovementioned Circulars dated 23-7-1986 and 7-8-1987 was reviewed with effect from 16-1-1989 by virtue of Circular No. 6/89 of the Board dated 16-1-1989. Consequently, the said products of the appellant are now to be classified as the products of the packaging industry coming within Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1986. The appellant also submits that with effect from the said date the appellant is classifying its products in terms of Circular No. 6/89, dated 16-1-1989. However, it is contended that in view of the fact that prior to issuance of the said Circular dated 16-1-1989, Circular No. 4/85 being in force, the appellant's products are liable to be classified for duty under Chapter 49 of the Act. It was also contended that these Circulars being binding on the Department, they are bound in law to comply with the same and the show cause-cum-demand notices issued by the authorities being contrary to the relevant Circulars in force, the said notices/demands are liable to be quashed. On behalf of the Union, it is contended that though the Circulars in question are binding on the Department, they are not binding on the adjudicating authorities, therefore, it was open to the Tribunal to have independently considered the case and having done so correctly, the appellant's appeals before us are devoid of any merit.
(3.) It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case elaborately in view of certain admitted facts. The respondent does not dispute that by virtue of Circular dated 23-7-1986 and as clarified by Circular dated 7-8-1987, the products manufactured by the appellant will have to be classified under Chapter 49 of the Act at the relevant time but it contends that the Circulars referred to above did not correctly reflect the correct classification and correct position is as clarified by subsequent Circular of the Board dated 16-1-1989 and also in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India, 1994 (72) ELT 793 : (1994 AIR SCW 5087) , the tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant.;