2000 (1) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product under Heading 83.09 or 76.07 of Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of a product manufactured by M/s. Graphic Print Pack. The main issue was whether the product should be classified under Heading 83.09 as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Heading 76.07 as claimed by the Appellants.

Arguments by Appellant:
The Appellant argued that they are engaged in printing and cutting aluminum foil into circular shapes for their customers. They contended that the product should be classified under Heading 76.07 as it is in the nature of foil, even though it is circular. They emphasized that the product is known as aluminum foil discs in trade parlance and not just seals. Additionally, they cited a previous decision to support their claim that no differential duty can be demanded when an approved classification list was in force.

Counterarguments by Respondent:
The Respondent argued that the product should be classified under Heading 83.09 as it is used as a seal by customers. They pointed out that the product meets the criteria of being a packing accessory under this heading. The Respondent also disputed the applicability of the previous decision cited by the Appellant, stating that no classification list was filed in 1995, and now, excise assessees only need to file declarations of the products they manufacture.

Judgment:
The Tribunal examined the submissions from both sides and concluded that the product in question, despite being circular aluminum foil, should be classified under Heading 83.09 as a packing accessory. The Tribunal found that the product was specifically manufactured for closing containers and thus fell under the category of packing accessories. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the product could be classified as foil under Note (d) to Chapter 76, as it assumed the character of articles of Heading 83.09. The Tribunal also noted that the change in provisions since 1995 regarding classification lists supported the Respondent's position. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's request to recalculate the duty amount based on a previous decision related to the wholesale price for duty calculation.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of classifying the product under Heading 83.09, and the duty amount was to be recalculated accordingly based on the Tribunal's decision in a previous case.