2004 (7) TMI 94 - SC - Central Excise

Aluminium foil, perforated and cut to shape - Classification of goods - whether the shaped pieces fall under Tariff Item 7606.30 or under Tariff Item 7616.90 - Held that - decision of the Tribunal in Appellant s own case reported in 1995 (9) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , is on identical facts - No distinguishable feature between these two cases is found - goods would be covered by Tariff Item 1 7607.30 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Item 7607.30 or 7616.90.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of Aluminum Foil shaped pieces. The Appellants processed duty paid Aluminum Foil by printing, die cutting, stripping scrap material, and packing the shaped pieces into containers.

2. The key issue was whether the shaped pieces fell under Tariff Item 7607.30 or Tariff Item 7616.90. The Tribunal held that the goods assumed the shape of a complete container through operations, with only glueing remaining. However, there was no finding that the goods were folded and glued at the time of clearance, as claimed by the Appellants' Counsel.

3. The Tribunal's decision hinged on whether the Aluminum Foil, when cut to shape, had assumed the character of some other article. The Court interpreted that for the goods to fall under Tariff Item 7616.90, they must not be covered by any other Tariff Item. It was established that if covered by Item No. 7607.30, the goods could not be classified under Tariff Item 7616.90.

4. Chapter Note 1(d) was cited, stating that headings 7606 and 7607 would not apply if the goods assumed the character of articles of other headings. The Court clarified that this note would only be relevant if the goods were covered by a different Tariff Entry. Mere cutting into the shape of a blade tuck did not change the character of the goods.

5. The Court noted the Tribunal's previous decision in the Appellant's case and found no distinguishable feature from the current case. The Tribunal's reasoning for distinguishing the cases was unclear, leading the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and classify the goods under Tariff Item 7607.30.

6. Consequently, the Court held that the goods in question would be covered by Tariff Item 7607.30 and disposed of the Appeal with no order as to costs.