2002 (6) TMI 530 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of paints under specific Tariff heading based on packaging.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the primary issue was the classification of paints manufactured by the appellant. The appellant claimed that the goods should be classified under heading 32.13 of the Tariff as sign board painter's colors. However, this claim was denied because it was uncertain whether the paint would only be used by sign board painters upon reaching the market, and the goods were not packed in the specified containers as required by the heading. The decision in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CCE was also referred to by the adjudicating and appellate authority.

The contentions presented by the appellant's representative focused on distinguishing the present case from the precedent set in Goodlass Nerolac Paints. The appellant argued that unlike the situation in the previous case, where the manufacturer admitted the paint was classifiable under a different heading, in their case, the goods were only sold in one type of packaging. They contended that the metal tin containers used by the appellant were similar to the containers mentioned in the heading, emphasizing the phrase "similar forms of packing."

The departmental representative reiterated the findings of the adjudicating and appellate authorities, supporting the denial of the appellant's classification claim. The Tribunal, in its analysis, agreed that the applicability of the previous decision to the current case was questionable. It was noted that in the previous case, the manufacturer had admitted the paint was classifiable under a different heading, which was not the situation in the present appeal.

The Tribunal further examined the packaging of the goods in question, specifically comparing them to jars and bottles as mentioned in the heading. By referencing dictionary definitions, it was determined that jars are typically made of glass or earthenware, while tins or cans are made of metal. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, which interprets general terms following specific ones, the Tribunal concluded that the metal containers used by the appellant did not fall under the category of "similar forms of packing" as required by the heading. Consequently, the goods were deemed not classifiable under that heading, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.