1995 (2) TMI 66 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the fibre drum should be classified under Item No. 17(4) as claimed by the appellant or under the residuary Item No. 68, which is the stand of the Revenue? Held that - The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that such fibre drums shall not be covered by Item No. 17(4) and they shall be covered by residuary Item No. 68. The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal is upheld.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of fiber drum under Item No. 17(4) or residuary Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Dispute: The appellant manufactures fiber drums primarily made of paper or paperboard with plywood lids and bottoms reinforced with steel rings. The appellant sought classification under Item No. 17(4) instead of the residuary Item No. 68, claiming it as a paper product. The dispute arose regarding the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff.

2. Assistant Collector's Order: Initially, the Assistant Collector approved the classification under Item No. 17(4) based on a Trade Notice specifying that packing containers with reinforcing circular bands fall under this sub-item. However, a subsequent order called for reclassification under Item No. 68 due to the presence of plywood in the drum, which was not exclusively paper-based.

3. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Decision: The appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was allowed, classifying the fiber drum under Item No. 17(4). The decision was supported by the composition of the drum and the Trade Notice, emphasizing the paper content's predominance.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which classified the fiber drum under Item No. 68, setting aside the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal found that the drum did not qualify under Item No. 17(4) due to the presence of plywood and steel rings, concluding it fell under the residuary category.

5. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that despite the presence of plywood and steel reinforcement, the fiber drum was primarily a packing container made of paper. Reference was made to the Central Excise Tariff's language, emphasizing the inclusion of containers made from paper or paperboard under Item No. 17.

6. International Classification and Industry Standards: The appellant highlighted international classification standards for composite paperboard drums and containers, indicating their classification under Heading 48.16 equivalent to Tariff Item No. 17(4). Additionally, industry standards defined fiberboard drums as shipping packages primarily composed of paper or board, supporting the appellant's classification argument.

7. Legal Precedents: The Revenue relied on legal precedents, including a judgment related to plastic articles, emphasizing the distinction between materials used in manufacturing and the final product's classification. Another case involving composite containers made of paper, metal components, and other materials was cited to support the classification under the residuary category.

8. Final Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that the fiber drum, despite its paper content, did not qualify under Item No. 17(4) due to the presence of non-paper components, affirming its classification under the residuary Item No. 68. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute over the fiber drum and the legal considerations leading to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Tribunal's classification under the Central Excise Tariff's residuary category.