1988 (8) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff, Interpretation of "container" for classification purposes

In this case, the appeal was directed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, classifying the goods manufactured by the appellants as printed cartons under Item 17(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector demanded duty and imposed a penalty on the appellants for contravention of Central Excise law. The process involved the appellants obtaining rolls of printed corrugated sheets, cutting them into small pieces, joining them to form a drum to hold an electric bulb. The Collector determined that the drum constituted a carton with distinct characteristics and use, falling under Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that their process was merely packing, not manufacturing, and thus not subject to Central Excise levy. The appellants also contended that the goods were not eligible for duty exemption or benefits under specific notifications due to their composition. The central issue was whether the goods fell within the ambit of Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff.

The Tribunal analyzed the classification under Item 17(3) and the Collector's reliance on the Customs Cooperation Counsel Nomenclature (CCCN) notes, determining that CCCN cannot be used to interpret entries in the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal found that the goods did not resemble typical paper drums covered under CCCN notes and did not meet the criteria for classification as containers. Referring to a Bombay High Court case, the Tribunal established that for an article to be considered a container, it must have a separate existence from the contents it holds. The Tribunal emphasized that a container must already exist before goods are placed in it, rejecting the Collector's classification of the paper drum as a carton.

The Tribunal also referenced Indian Standard definitions of "container" and "carton," highlighting that a container must be capable of holding goods independently. The Tribunal concluded that the paper drum in question did not qualify as a carton before or after the bulb insertion, as it did not meet the criteria of a container. Therefore, the classification under Item 17(3) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to discuss other authorities cited or additional contentions, ultimately overturning the Collector's order and ruling in favor of the appellants.