2003 (2) TMI 210 - SC - Central Excise

Cigarette packets - Printed cigarette packets - Words and Phrases - Box and container - Distinction between

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of cigarette packets under Tariff Item No. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Interpretation of the terms 'boxes', 'cartons', 'bags', and 'other packing containers'.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82-C.E, dated 28-2-1982.
4. Marketability and commercial understanding of cigarette packets.
5. Contextual statutory interpretation and dictionary meanings of relevant terms.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Cigarette Packets:
The primary issue is whether cigarette packets should be classified as 'other packing containers' or 'boxes' under Tariff Item No. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Department argued that cigarette packets are 'small paper boxes', whereas the respondent contended they are 'other packing containers'.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Terms:
The Court examined the terms 'boxes', 'cartons', 'bags', and 'other packing containers' within the context of Tariff Item No. 17. It emphasized that 'other packing container' is a residuary term and should not include 'boxes', 'cartons', or 'bags'. The Court referred to dictionary definitions to elucidate these terms:
- 'Box' is defined as a receptacle or container, usually with a lid.
- 'Packet' is a small or medium-sized container often made of cardboard.
- 'Container' is broadly defined as any object capable of holding goods, often for transport or storage.

3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82-C.E:
The Exemption Notification exempts articles of paper or paperboard from excise duty, except for printed boxes and printed cartons. The Court noted that cigarette packets are printed and thus do not qualify for exemption under this notification.

4. Marketability and Commercial Understanding:
The Court considered whether cigarette packets are commercially known and marketable as 'boxes' or 'cartons'. It referred to previous judgments, including Punjab Anand Lamps Industries, which emphasized the importance of marketability and commercial recognition. The Court concluded that cigarette packets are marketable and thus should not be exempt from excise duty.

5. Contextual Statutory Interpretation:
The Court relied on the principle that words in a statute should be interpreted in their context and in harmony with related terms. It referred to the judgment in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which discussed the interpretation of 'containers' in the context of the Central Excise Tariff. The Court reiterated that 'container' should be understood as a receptacle used for storage and transportation, analogous to boxes and cartons.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that cigarette packets should be classified as 'boxes' under Tariff Item No. 17 and are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise's orders were restored. The Court emphasized the importance of context, dictionary meanings, and marketability in statutory interpretation.