9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases are that M/s. ITC Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes which are packed in packets comprising of an outer printed shell and inner printed slide made of paper board. The slides which are actually in the form of a printed paper board cut to shape and size are made by M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. out of duty paid paper board at their factories. In respect of their factory at Parel, Bombay, M/s. ITC Ltd. filed a classification list No. 1/86, dated 1-3-1986 in which they classified `printed slides' under sub-heading 4818.19 of the Central Excise Tariff at `nil' rate of duty. They were served with a show cause notice dated 3-4-1986 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay-I, requiring them to show cause why the said slides should not be classified under sub-heading 4818.90. In their reply dated 17-4-1986 to the show cause notice, M/s. ITC contended that slides were not excisable at all and, in any event, they could be classified only under sub-heading 4818.19 in terms of the classification list filed by them. However, by his order dated 22/26-5-1986 the Assistant Collector rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that printed slides in question were classifiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and 4818.13 also cannot have any application in so far as slides are concerned since they cover only complete printed cartons, boxes, containers and cases. He contended that for these reasons even if one goes by the reasoning adopted by the Department in their appeal that slides and shells are used as containers to protect cigarettes, slides which are only component parts of cigarette packets would be classifiable only under sub-heading 4818.19. The Learned Counsel referred to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India reported in 1991 (34) ECR 7 and read out the observations of the High Court that even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that "outer shell" is a packet, still it would not be called a box since a packet consists of both the components, the shell and the slide and in the absence of the slide, by no stretch of imagination it would be called a box. He also referred to the observations of the High Court in para 18 of the judgment that to become "goods" an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold but at the shell stage it can neither be bought nor sold. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated his stand that the scope of the term "article" in Heading 48.18 was wide enough to cover different products including parts and components. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lal & Sons reported in 1966 (17) STC 170, in which it has been held that the expression "stainless steel articles" is sufficiently wide enough to include utensils manufactured out of stainless steel. He stated that in the judgment the High Court had also observed that according to Webster and the Shorter Oxford Dictionaries an "article" means a particular commodity, a thing for sale and it also means a part or a portion and an "article" also means a component part, a distinct part or a portion. Shri Chandrasekharan stated that the slides which according to the appellants', own version are "parts" of packets made by cutting printed paper board to shape and size, have to be treated as "articles" of paper-board classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90. Referring to Shri Ravinder Narain's contention that the slides are not excisable since on the ratio of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-heading 4818.90. He submitted that once it is held that the goods in question fall under a particular Tariff Heading, they will be liable to tax unless they are in the nature of unfinished goods like crude PVC films which came up for consideration in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. He contended that the disputed goods being finished identifiable goods for which the appellants have been filing classification lists have to be deemed as marketable and excisable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 756. Making his submissions in the case in which the Revenue has filed the appeal, Shri Chandrasekharan stated that the Department's stand is that in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Tariff Schedule, `slides' would be classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 on account of having acquired the essential characteristics of the goods covered by that sub-headinng. 5. Replying to the points made on behalf of the Revenue, Shri Ravinder Narain stated that on the ratio of the judgment of the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADDING OR WEBS OF CELLULOSE FIBRES - Cartons, boxes, containers and cases (including flattened or folded boxes and flattened or folded cartons), whether in assembled or un-assembled condition : 4818.11 -- Intended for packing of match sticks Nil 4818.12 -- Printed cartons, boxes, containers and cases, made wholly out of paper or paperboard of heading No. or sub-heading No. 48.04, 4805.11, 4805.19, 4807.91, 4807.92, 48.08 or 4811.10, as the case may be 35% 4818.13 -- Other printed cartons, boxes and cases 35% 4818.19 -- Other Nil 4818.20 - Toilet tissues, handkerchiefs and cleansing tissues of paper 12% 4818.90 - Other 12%" 8. It is seen that the description of goods against sub-headings 4818.13 and 4818.19 is preceded by "--". Hence the group of articles covered by these sub-headings have to be treated as sub-classification of the immediately preceding articles or group of articles that are preceded by a "-". It follows that the disputed slides for cigarettes would be classifiable either under sub-headings 4818.13 or 4818.19 only if they can be deemed as any of the items specified against the first sub-heading of Heading 48.18 i.e. cartons, boxes, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en included by the Legislature in the relevant headings of the Tariff by making a specific reference to parts. In support of this argument Shri Ravinder Narain has referred to sub-headings 66.01, 84.31 and 92.04 in which along with the goods, their parts have also been included by making a specific mention. 10. It is seen that Rule 1 of the Rules For the Interpretation of the Schedule provides that classification of any goods under the Schedule has to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector, reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350), in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. Hence, the question whether the disputed `slide' which admittedly is a part of a cigarette packet can also be deemed as an "Article of paper/paper board" falling under sub-heading 4818.90 will have to be decided having regard to the wordings of the relevant heading and sub-headings and not on the basis of the scheme of the Tariff or any supposed intention of the legislature. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry 20 must necessarily mean a component part and not a whole commodity or a whole thing." In view of the above discussion and having regard to the fact that the `slide' in question is produced by cutting paper/paper board to size and shape and admittedly it constitutes a part of a cigarette packet, we are inclined to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Revenue that it has to be deemed as an "Article of paper/paper board" covered by Heading 48.18 and will correctly be classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90. 12. Shri Ravinder Narain has contended that even if the `slide' in question is held as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 it will not be excisable in view of the finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India that "outer shell" of a cigarette packet cannot be deemed as "goods" which can ordinarily come to the market to be sold and bought, is equally applicable to `slides'. He has argued that the Department had failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to prove the marketability of the `slides' in question. In this regard he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhor I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be subjected to duty twice over and even otherwise, the outer shells and inner slides cannot be subjected to any separate assessment. Shri Ravinder Narain has contended that on the ratio of the findings in these judgments, `slides' cannot be deemed as `goods' which can ordinarily come to the market to be sold and bought. 14. In the judgment cited by the Learned Counsel on behalf of M/s. ITC the question of dutiability of `slides'/`cigarette packets' under sub-heading 4819.90 was not an issue for decision before the Hon'ble High Courts. In view of our findings that `slides' for cigarette packets are "Articles of paper/paper board" classifiable under sub-heading 4819.90, the judgments in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India and Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, on which the Learned Counsel for M/s. I.T.C. has placed reliance are distinguishable and for this reason, we are not inclined to agree with Shri Ravinder Narain that in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India that "shells" can neither be bought nor sold in the market and by implication the "slides" will also have to be deemed as not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
