1994 (12) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of Multiwall Paper Bags (Printed) and Multiwall Paper Bags (Unprinted).
2. Interpretation of Tariff Heading 48.18 and its sub-headings.
3. Applicability of the principle of ejusdem generis.
4. Consideration of commercial understanding and technical literature definitions.
5. Relevance of the Supreme Court ruling in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. CCE.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Multiwall Paper Bags (Printed) and Multiwall Paper Bags (Unprinted):

The appeal challenges the classification of Multiwall Paper Bags (Printed) and Multiwall Paper Bags (Unprinted) under residuary sub-heading 4818.90 instead of sub-heading 4818.12 for printed bags and sub-heading 4818.19 for unprinted bags. The Collector (Appeals) held that these bags do not fit the description of cartons, boxes, containers, and cases as per sub-heading 4818.12 and 4818.19, which led to the rejection of the appellant's claim.

2. Interpretation of Tariff Heading 48.18 and its sub-headings:

The Collector (Appeals) interpreted sub-heading 4818.12 as not extendable beyond the scope of Heading 48.18, emphasizing that the impugned product, being flexible or non-rigid, does not fall under cartons, boxes, containers, and cases as described in the heading. The Tribunal examined the definitions of "container" and "bag" from various technical sources and found that although a bag is a type of container, it does not align with the rigid nature implied by the tariff heading.

3. Applicability of the principle of ejusdem generis:

The Supreme Court's ruling in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. CCE was cited, where it was held that the principle of ejusdem generis applies, meaning that general words following specific words should be interpreted in the context of the specific words. The Tribunal applied this principle, concluding that the term "containers" in the tariff heading should be interpreted in the context of rigid containers like boxes and cartons.

4. Consideration of commercial understanding and technical literature definitions:

The appellant argued that the commercial understanding of "containers" should include flexible bags, supported by definitions from various technical literature. However, the Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's reasoning, held that the commercial understanding must align with the specific context of the tariff heading, which implies rigid containers.

5. Relevance of the Supreme Court ruling in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. CCE:

The Tribunal heavily relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, which held that "egg trays" are not containers under Heading 48.18. Applying this reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that multiwall paper bags, being non-rigid, do not qualify as containers under the same heading.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

Judgment by Member (J):

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, literature, and the Supreme Court ruling, held that multiwall paper bags do not fall within the definition of cartons and boxes under sub-heading 4818.12 and 4818.19. The classification of products under these sub-headings necessitates rigid types manufactured from paperboard, which the impugned product does not meet. Thus, the appeal was rejected.

Judgment by Vice President:

The Vice President concurred with the Member (J), emphasizing that although bags are containers, they do not fit the type covered by heading 4818.12 due to their flexible nature. He noted that the inclusion of bags under 48.19 from 1-3-1988 indicates their exclusion from the corresponding heading before this amendment. Therefore, the products were correctly classified under 4818.90, and the appeal was rejected.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the classification of Multiwall Paper Bags (Printed) and Multiwall Paper Bags (Unprinted) under residuary sub-heading 4818.90, as they do not meet the criteria for sub-heading 4818.12 and 4818.19, which require rigid containers.

← Previous Next →