Of India in revision in the Petitioners case is set aside inasmuch as the Revision Authorities have number companytroverted or rebutted the evidence in the form of affidavits relied on by the Petitioners to show that their product companyld number be regarded as a plastic emulsion paint amongst persons dealing in such products.
The Revision order thus failed to follow the well established rule of interpreting entries in the Excise Tariff namely to classify products by their companymon parlance and trade understanding and number by their scientific or technical meaning.
E 2312/85 C. K. Venugopal, R. Narain, S. Ganesh, R. Shah, R.K. Ram and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In this appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act , the question involved is whether Decoplast manufactured by the Asian Paints India Ltd., the appellant herein, is plastic emulsion paint and, therefore, classifiable under Tariff Item 14 I 3 iv of the First Schedule of the Act as plastic emulsion paint or it should be classifiable under Tariff Item No.
From the Order dated 27.5.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
The Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the CEGAT , by the impugned order challenged in this appeal held that Decoplast is plastic emulsion paint.
The appellant felt aggrieved thereby.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In pursuance to the said order, the matter came before the Tribunal.
Ultimately, the same was rejected by the Government of India.
The Judicial Member of the Tribunal was of the view that the Revenue had number adduced any evidence of rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the appellant as the companymercial understanding but the evidence adduced by the appellant was intrinsically untrustworthy.
It is number necessary to set out in detail all the events.
A In support of appellants companytention, affidavits had been filed by them and the same were companysidered in extenso by the Tribunal.
It appears that the appellants had filed revision application before the Government of India against the order of the Revenue authorities.
However, as the Revision Authority under the demanded Central Excise and Salt Act has been replaced by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, the said Tribunal is directed to hear the Petitioners Revision Petition and to determine the same as an appeal before it.
The appellant had moved the High Court of Bombay against the order of the Government of India and the High Court by its order directed as follows The order dated 17th December, 1979 passed by the Govt.
2456 of 1987.
It is necessary that the matter be remanded to the Revision Authorities to decide the same afresh according to law.
