9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant seeks to classify the said product under T.I. 17(4)/17(3) after 1983 Budget and thus avail the benefit of Notification 66/82 dated 28-2-1982 as amended by Notification 151/83 dated 13-5-1983. On the other hand, the department has classified the said product under T.I. 68 of Central Excise Tariff as it then stood. The other appeals pertain to the refund claims of duty paid by the appellant in terms of the department's classification under Tariff Item 68. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant Shri P.A.S. Rao has conceded at the outset that there is a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 35 which is against the appellant. The goods under classification i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord fabric. The learned advocate submits that the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision 1984 (18) E.L.T. 35 has misdirected itself by stipulating that the articles of paper mentioned in Tariff Item 17(4)/17(3) as the case may be should be made 100% of paper or paper board. 4. The learned advocate further submits that the expression used in the Tariff is "other packing containers" in sub-item 17(4)/17(3). The composite containers satisfy this description and should, therefore, be classified under 17(4)/17(3) as the case may be. He relies on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case that "what is import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. He points out that this Indian Standard is "Specification for Composite Container for Dry Products". This has been finalised, as apparent from foreword of the said specification, by the Committee on Paper and Flexible Packaging Sectional Committee. (Emphasis supplied by the learned advocate). He also points out that under para 4.1.3 of the said specification for the composite containers, it is stated that ends of such containers shall be of "paper board, tinplate, black plate aluminium or plastics." Learned advocate for the appellant further points out, on the commercial parlance test itself that under the Schedule of industries notified under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the product 'composite container' is un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1984 (18) E.L.T. 35] we observe that the learned advocate for the appellant is correct to the extent that the commercial parlance test was not applied in determining the classification of the product known as composite containers but the fact remains that the classification of the product has been settled by the Supreme Court by confirming the decision of the Tribunal. It is not, therefore, appropriate in the first instance to reopen that settled question merely because a different argument is advanced by another appellant assuming that argument to be correct. 7. However, we further observe that on the basis of material brought on record by the learned advocate for the appellant, we are doubtful whether the product 'composite container' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
