9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of the foil, and we can find none in the records or in the arguments of the learned SDR, The disagreement between the two sides is over the assessment by the Central Excise department of the foils, a second time under the head 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff for Foils , because the goods were subjected to etching and other processing, leading the Appellate Collector to say: hence, I am of the opinion that the etched aluminium foils, which are produced by the electro chemical processing of plain aluminium foils to make then suitable for specific electronic purposes would fall under Tariff Item 27(c) and not under T.I.68 of the Central Excise Tariff so long as their thickness does not exceed 0.15 mm . 2. The learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : that is, it has a number of adjectival past participles in parentheses thus: (whether or not embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed or backed with paper or other reinforcing material), immediately following it to describe the foils or kinds of foils that are to be assessed under it. This single word Foils is magnified by the participles that all those kinds of foils are nothing but Foils for the purpose of Item 27(c). Thus, for example, a foil; whether embossed or not embossed; whether coated or not coated, whether it is this kind or that kind; is a Foil. 7. Unhappily, the parenthesized clarification has been read as an exhortation to exact duty whenever the tax collector sees a foil change from plain foil to coated, to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not within the parentheses of the Foils item. The Appellate Collr. does not depend upon any perception that etched foils are one of the enumerated or listed good, but upon their production by the electro chemical process of plain aluminium foils to make them suitable for specific electronic purposes , to pronounce that they would fall under Item 27(c) better than under Item 68. But no weight is given to the duty paid under the same item viz. 27(c). This payment of duty debars all further demands of the same duty under the same head. This is true even when the duty already paid was a customs/countervailing duty, and not an excise duty. 11. The Central Excise department want to levy the duty under Item 27(c) under Foils". Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
