2005 (9) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Blister packs under Central Excise Tariff
2. Excisability of Blister packs as marketable commodities
3. Allegation of manufacturing activity in relation to Blister packs

Issue 1: Classification of Blister packs under Central Excise Tariff
The case involved appeals filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, regarding the classification of Blister packs manufactured by the appellants. The Commissioner classified the Blister packs under Heading 39.23.92 as articles for packing goods of plastic. However, the appellants contended that the Blister packs were not excisable as they were not marketable commodities and cited Circular No. 11/89 issued by the Ministry of Finance to support their argument. The Circular emphasized that containers formed during the packing process, which cannot be marketed separately, should be assessed along with the packed goods only. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, ruling that the Blister packs did not have independent marketability and were not excisable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the classification under Heading 39.23.92 was deemed incorrect.

Issue 2: Excisability of Blister packs as marketable commodities
The Tribunal analyzed the excisability of the Blister packs, considering whether they were marketable commodities. Referring to the Ministry's Circular, it was noted that items like Blister packs, which are formed during the packing process and cannot be marketed independently, should not be assessed separately for excise duty. The Tribunal concurred with the appellants' argument that the Blister packs were not marketable commodities as they were only used during the packing of jetter pens and did not have an independent existence. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Blister packs were not excisable and should be assessed along with the pens under the appropriate tariff heading.

Issue 3: Allegation of manufacturing activity in relation to Blister packs
In another aspect of the case, the Revenue contended that the activity of pasting Blister packs onto perforated cards constituted manufacturing, contrary to the show cause notice's allegations. The Tribunal examined this claim and found that the show cause notice did not specifically allege that pasting the Blister packs amounted to manufacturing. Instead, the notice focused on the process through which the components of the Blister packs were created. The Tribunal upheld its earlier decision that the Blister packs were not excisable and rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Blister packs did not have independent marketability and should be assessed along with the pens under the relevant tariff heading.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, in its judgment, addressed the classification of Blister packs under the Central Excise Tariff, the excisability of these packs as marketable commodities, and the allegation of manufacturing activity related to the Blister packs. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the Blister packs were not excisable, lacked independent marketability, and should be assessed along with the pens they were packed with. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues involved, referencing relevant legal principles and the Ministry's Circular to support its decision.