JUDGMENT : The appellants manufacture paper and paper-board from material other than bamboo, hardwood, softwood, reeds or rags. They use waste paper for the manufacture of paper and paper-boards. They, therefore, claimed for the year commencing 1st April, 1987 the exemption available under Notification No. 138/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986. Proviso (iv) to that Notification is relevant for our purpose. By reason of it, a factory that "does not have a plant attached thereto for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp" is entitled to the exemption. The appellants claimed that they satisfied that requirement by reason of the fact that stated parts of the mill for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp in their factory had been detached. A panchnama made subsequently revealed that this was so and that the electric power supply to the pulp mill had been switched off and the pulp mill had been closed for many years. The classification list that the appellants had filed remain pending for a consideration period of time and no provisional order was passed. The appellants, however, cleared the goods, paying thereon excise duty at the exempted rate, marking the gate passes, "subject to approval of classification lists". On 21-1-1968 the appellants were served with a notice in regard to the classification list filed by them, which, the notice said, appeared to be inadmissible in view of the aforequoted condition of the Notification. The appellants sought a hearing, which was given. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed an order on 4th May, 1988, rejecting the classification list. He held that what the appellants had done did not satisfy the condition that their factory did not have a plant attached thereto for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp; that they had removed or dis-connected certain accessories connecting or joining the concerned machinery and switched off of the electric supply thereto did not lead to the conclusion that the appellants did not have a plant attached to their factory for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp. 2. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise and lost. They then carried the matter to the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took much the same view as had been taken by the authorities below. 2. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise and lost. They then carried the matter to the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took much the same view as had been taken by the authorities below. The Tribunal agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the Excise authorities that, by suspending the operation of the pulp mill by the appellants themselves, by detaching the chipping and chips washing unit for the time being, it could not be held that their factory did not have a mill attached for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp. All these operations were of a temporary nature and could be reversed at the will and convenience of the appellants. The exemption was available to a paper mill which did not have a plant attached to it for making bamboo pulp and wood pulp, and by temporary dis-connecting such a plant of discontinuing its use, the paper mill did not undergo a change in its character or eligibility. 3. In our view, in the first place, this is a matter of appreciation of evidence : as to whether or not the aforesaid condition was satisfied. We find no fault in the appreciation of the evidence on record by the Tribunal and its reasoning in that behalf. Secondly, it is very significant that the most relevant evidence was not produced by the appellants, namely, the evidence, either on affidavit or in person, of a technically qualified man who could authoritatively say that the plant for manufacturing bamboo pulp or wood pulp had been rendered totally disfunctional. 4. No other point has been canvassed by the appellants. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.