1989 (9) TMI 104 - SC - Central Excise

CENTRAL EXCISE EXEMPTIONS ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE PAPER AND PAPER BOARDS PRINTED BOXES AND CARTONS EXCLUDED FROM PURVIEW OF EXEMPTIONS PAPER SLEEVES AND TUBES FOR BULBS AND TUBE LIGHTS

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the bulb sleeves and tube light sleeves manufactured by the respondent are subject to excise duty or entitled to exemption under specific notifications.
- Whether the respondent wilfully suppressed facts to evade Central Excise duty.
- Whether the products manufactured by the respondent qualify as printed boxes and cartons under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
- Whether the Tribunal's decision to exempt the respondent from excise duty was correct.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was whether the bulb sleeves and tube light sleeves manufactured by the respondent were classified as printed boxes and cartons subject to excise duty or exempt under specific notifications. The revenue alleged that the respondent manufactured printed cartons for bulbs and tubes, thus attracting excise duty. The respondent argued that the products did not qualify as printed boxes or cartons under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

2. The Additional Collector of Central Excise held that the products were classifiable under Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, making them liable for excise duty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing the distinction in Tariff Item 17(4) between various packing containers. The Tribunal found that the products manufactured by the respondent did not meet the definition of boxes or cartons as per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, thus exempting them from excise duty.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the products in question, namely the sleeves for bulbs and tube lights, did not function as traditional boxes or cartons due to their open-ended design. Since these products were primarily used for captive consumption by the respondent and lacked an independent market as corrugated boxes or cartons, the Tribunal concluded that they were not subject to excise duty under the specific notifications.

4. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the law and facts of the case. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach to determining the classification of the products and their eligibility for exemption from excise duty. As a result, the appeal by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling that the bulb sleeves and tube light sleeves manufactured by the respondent were not classified as printed boxes and cartons subject to excise duty. The Court found no grounds to overturn the Tribunal's decision, thereby upholding the exemption from excise duty for the respondent.