1984 (5) TMI 245 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of Vim Containers and Defence Containers under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Validity of the show cause notice issued based on Tariff Advice.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82.
4. Allegation of discrimination in classification.
5. Authority to reverse or review a quasi-judicial decision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Vim Containers and Defence Containers under Central Excise Tariff:

The primary issue was whether Vim Containers and Defence Containers should be classified under Item 17(4) or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (C.E.T.). The Tribunal noted that these containers were composite articles made of mill board, straw board, kraft paper, and metal components. While the appellants argued that these containers should be classified under Item 17(4) as articles of paper, the Tribunal found that the metal components, such as lids and bottoms made of tin plates and printed aluminum foils, were essential to the containers' functionality. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that these were composite containers and not solely articles of paper, classifying them correctly under Item 68 C.E.T.

2. Validity of the show cause notice issued based on Tariff Advice:

The appellants contended that the show cause notice issued on the basis of Tariff Advice No. 45/82 was illegal. However, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not explicitly reference the Tariff Advice and was based on the appellants' own invoices. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Orient Ceramics & Industries Limited v. Union of India, which held that the issuance of Tariff or Trade Advice does not inherently make a show cause notice illegal. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice was valid and lawful.

3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82:

The appellants sought exemption under Notification No. 66/82, which exempts articles of paper or paper board falling under sub-item (4) of Item 17 from excise duty. The Tribunal noted that since the Vim Containers and Defence Containers were not purely articles of paper or paper board but composite containers with significant metal components, they did not qualify for the exemption. Consequently, the benefit of Notification No. 66/82 could not be availed by the appellants.

4. Allegation of discrimination in classification:

The appellants argued that they were discriminated against as other manufacturers continued to enjoy the exemption under Notification No. 66/82. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the appellants failed to provide instances where similar products were classified differently in other Collectorates. The Tribunal dismissed the allegation of discrimination, stating that the mere fact that other suppliers did not charge excise duty did not imply a different classification.

5. Authority to reverse or review a quasi-judicial decision:

The appellants argued that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise could not reverse a quasi-judicial decision without cogent reasons. The Tribunal clarified that classification of a product could be changed if good cause was shown. In this case, the department had re-evaluated the classification based on the composite nature of the containers and issued a fresh classification list under Item 68 C.E.T. The Tribunal held that this action was within the department's authority and was neither illegal nor unjustified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the classification of Vim Containers and Defence Containers under Item 68 C.E.T., validated the show cause notice, denied the applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82, rejected the claim of discrimination, and affirmed the department's authority to reclassify the products. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

← Previous Next →