1995 (9) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of inner frames for cigarette packets under Central Excise Tariff - Heading 7116.90 vs. Heading 7607.30 read with Notification 180/88.

Analysis:
The issue at hand in the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi was the classification of inner frames for cigarette packets manufactured by the appellant company. The department had classified these goods under sub-heading 7116.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the appellant contended that they should be classified under Heading 7607.30 of the Tariff in conjunction with Notification 180/88.

The appellant's representative argued that the inner frames were essentially aluminum foil backed with paperboard, cut to shape, and perforated for folding and support within the cigarette packet. The advocate emphasized that the goods were merely aluminum foil backed with board, falling under Heading 76.30 of the tariff during the relevant period. He supported his argument by referencing the specific sub-headings and the principle of ejusdem generis, highlighting that the goods did not fit the description of the residuary entry under heading 7616.90. Furthermore, he cited legal precedents to strengthen his case, including a decision by the Delhi High Court and a ruling by the Tribunal in a similar case involving aluminum foil thickness classification.

In contrast, the Departmental Representative contended that the goods were more than simple foil backed with board, pointing out that they had a gold color, suggesting an additional process beyond mere backing. He argued that the goods were not perforated as claimed by the appellant, citing a Tribunal decision regarding slits for cigarette packets classification under a different sub-heading.

The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Heading 7607 of the Central Excise Tariff, which covered aluminum foil of specified thickness and treatments. It was noted that if the goods were aluminum foil backed with paperboard and did not exceed 0.2 mm in thickness, they would fall under Heading 76.07. The Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's argument regarding color as insufficient evidence of a different process, emphasizing that the goods' classification was supported by legal precedent and the specific wording of the tariff headings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, classifying the goods under Heading 7607.30 and affirming their eligibility for benefits under Notification 180/88. As the appeals succeeded on this point, the Tribunal did not delve into the alternative plea raised by the appellant's advocate, and accordingly allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the classification of the inner frames for cigarette packets, resolving the dispute between the appellant and the department regarding the appropriate heading under the Central Excise Tariff and providing a detailed analysis based on legal interpretations and precedents.