- (1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a Writ application filed by the appellant challenging the assessment of a substance called Hypalon under the Tariff item relating to Synthetic resin instead of Synthetic rubber. The judgment under appeal was passed on 18-2-1986. The same question was also raised in Matter No. 666 of 1983 (National Insulated Cable Co. Ltd. v. Collector). The writ application was allowed by another learned Single Judge holding that Hypalon was properly classifiable under Tariff heading of Synthetic rubber. A third writ application which raised the same question was also decided against the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities preferred two separate appeals from both these decisions. Those appeals as preferred by the Customs Authorities as well as this appeal were listed consecutively as all the three matters raised the same issue. The Custom's appeal from the judgment in Matter No. 666 of 1983 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7th May 1993. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld holding that Hypalon was classifiable as Synthetic rubber and not as Synthetic resin. This decision was subsequently reported in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. National Insulated Cable Co. Ltd. -MANU/WB/0334/1993.
(2.) We were informed that no appeal has been preferred by the Customs Authorities from the said judgment.
(3.) We are not persuaded to differ with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of National Insulated Cable Co. Ltd. We are accordingly bound by the decision and following the same we hold that Hypalon was not Synthetic resin but was classifiable under the Tariff heading of Synthetic rubber and the duty was leviable thereon on such basis.;