1985 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether an aluminium foil that has already paid duty under a specific tariff item is liable to pay duty again if further processed.
Interpretation of the tariff item regarding the excisability of different varieties of aluminium foils.
Analysis of the judgment in light of the Empire Industries case and the Swatick Packaging decision.

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether an aluminium foil that has already paid duty under a specific tariff item is liable to pay duty again if further processed. The tribunal ruled that once a product qualifies for an entry and has paid duty under that entry, it must not be required to pay duty again. The judgment references the DCM case and clarifies that not every manufacture automatically attracts excise duty if the product has already paid the duty. The tribunal set aside the Collector's order and held that no duty is leviable on the printed aluminium foils that had paid duty under the same tariff item. All confiscations and penalties were countermanded, and monies received were to be refunded.

Issue 2:
The judgment interprets the tariff item regarding the excisability of different varieties of aluminium foils. It explains that the tariff item does not provide for duty on individual varieties of aluminium foils like coated, printed, or perforated. Instead, it mandates duty on the foil regardless of its condition. The tribunal emphasized that any process done to the foil, whether embossed, coated, or printed, must pay duty as they all fall under the same category of foil. The judgment highlights that a foil, irrespective of its modifications, must pay duty under the specified tariff item.

Issue 3:
The judgment discusses the Empire Industries case and the Swatick Packaging decision in relation to the current matter. It contrasts the duty imposition on printed fabric in the Empire Industries case with the duty on printed aluminium foils in the present case. The tribunal explains that the Empire Industries judgment does not support the department's argument that duty must be levied again on printed foil due to the manufacturing process. It emphasizes that a specific tariff item is crucial for imposing duty, even if the product has undergone manufacturing processes. The tribunal aligns its decision with the Swatick Packaging ruling, stating that printing on duty-paid aluminium foils does not attract duty again. The judgment concludes by allowing the appeal based on these observations and qualifications.