1994 (2) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "inner-slides" for cigarette packets.
2. Marketability and excisability of "inner-slides" for cigarette packets.

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Classification of "inner-slides" for cigarette packets:

M/s. ITC Ltd. appealed against the order classifying "inner-slides" for cigarette packets under sub-heading 4818.90. The Revenue challenged this classification, arguing that the slides should be classified under sub-heading 4818.13. ITC Ltd. contended that the slides should be classified under sub-heading 4818.19 or not excisable at all.

The Tribunal examined Heading 48.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which covers "OTHER ARTICLES OF PAPER PULP, PAPER, PAPER-BOARD, CELLULOSE WADDING OR WEBS OF CELLULOSE FIBRES." The specific sub-headings under consideration were:
- 4818.13: Other printed cartons, boxes, and cases.
- 4818.19: Other.
- 4818.90: Other (residuary).

ITC Ltd. argued that the slides are not complete articles and should not fall under Heading 48.18. They cited various judgments, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India, which held that a "shell" without a slide is not a box or container and thus not excisable. The Madras High Court's judgment in Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise was also cited, which held that cigarette packets and their components should not be doubly taxed.

The Tribunal found that the slides could not be classified under sub-heading 4818.13 or 4818.19 as they are not complete cartons, boxes, or containers. However, they agreed with the Revenue that the slides, being parts of cigarette packets made by cutting printed paperboard, should be classified as "Articles of paper/paper board" under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90.

2. Marketability and excisability of "inner-slides" for cigarette packets:

ITC Ltd. argued that the slides are not marketable and therefore not excisable, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Zupiter Printing and the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which emphasized the necessity of marketability for excisability.

The Tribunal considered the judgments in Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. and other relevant cases, concluding that the marketability of each product must be considered separately. They noted that the slides have a specific name, are parts of cigarette packets, and find extensive use in the cigarette industry. ITC Ltd. had been filing classification lists for these slides, indicating their market presence.

The Tribunal found sufficient evidence to conclude that the slides are marketable and therefore excisable under sub-heading 4818.90. They rejected ITC Ltd.'s contention that the slides are not marketable and thus not liable to duty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the classification of "inner-slides" for cigarette packets under sub-heading 4818.90 and rejected the appeals filed by M/s. ITC Ltd. and the Revenue. The cross-objection filed by M/s. ITC Ltd. was also disposed of accordingly.