1987 (10) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Proper classification of "cartridge paper" under the Customs Tariff Act and Central Excises and Salt Act.

In this case, the main issue was the correct classification of "cartridge paper" under the Customs Tariff Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appellants imported Dutch White Cartridge paper and claimed it should be classified under a different heading to claim a refund of Customs duty. The Customs authorities had classified it under one heading, while the appellants argued it should fall under a different category. The dispute arose because the Assistant Collector believed that cartridge paper above 85 g.s.m. was not typically used for printing and writing but rather for drawing and envelope purposes. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The appellants presented various technical authorities to support their classification argument. These included definitions of "cartridge paper" from different sources, such as the Glossary of Terms used in the Paper Trade and Industry, the Indian Paper Makers Association, and specific standards like IS: 1848-1981. These definitions highlighted that cartridge paper could be used for printing and writing purposes, contradicting the Customs authorities' stance. Additionally, the appellants referenced publications like the Institute of Economic and Market Research's report and the Paper Traders Association of India's handbook to further support their position.

The Tribunal considered the technical authorities and previous decisions on paper classification. They noted that grammage alone should not determine paper classification and cited a recent case where cartridge paper over 85 g.s.m. was classified differently. The Tribunal found that such paper should fall under a specific heading in the Customs Tariff Schedule and the Central Excises and Salt Act, supporting their decision with the authorities mentioned in the appellants' submissions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the cartridge paper of over 85 g.s.m. should be classified under a different heading as per the Customs Tariff Schedule and the Central Excises and Salt Act. They allowed the appeal and granted consequential relief to the appellants based on their findings, in line with the recent decision and the technical definitions provided during the case.