9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pper Bag, Plastic Scrap and Plastic films printed with motifs. The dispute in the instant case relates to the classification of Plastic Films printed with motifs. It is the case of the Revenue that the Respondents have filed their classification list effective from 1-1-1992 inter alia classifying the disputed goods, namely Plastic Films printed with motifs under Chapter 4901.90 for approval. On receipt of the same a Show Cause Notice dated 18-2-1992 was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the subject goods be not classified under sub-heading 3920.32 on the ground that they are manufacturing multilayer plastic films out of Polyethylene granules; that these films are mainly used for packing of milk, oil, Ghee, liquor, etc. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of metallising of duty paid printed polyster film brought from outside amounts to manufacture or not whereas in the present case the issue is the correct classification of the subject goods, namely, plastic films printed with motifs (Thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm). Hence the ratio of the said case was not applicable to the present case. Continuing further, he submitted that as per Section Note 2 of Section VII of Central Excise Tariff printed plastic films will merit classification under Heading No. 4901 only if printing is not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods which is not case here that is to say in the present case the printed plastic films are used only as packing material and printing of it is only an incidental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to avail both duty concession as well as MODVAT Credit on printing ink. He also submitted that the Collector (Appeals) wrongly relied upon the Trade Notice No. 61/87, dated 19-8-1987 issued by Bombay-I Collectorate for the purpose of the classification as these are irrelevant while deciding the issue of classification. 4. In reply Shri B.N. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned orders cited the Final Order No. 39/92-C, dated 10-2-1992 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs Central Excise v. M/s. Paper Products Ltd. and also the case of Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Oriental Timber Industries, 1985 (20) E.L.T. 202 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions and the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector (Appeals) obviously because it might not have brought to his notice or that it might not be available at the time of the passing of the impugned Order, as the said Final Order of the Tribunal is dated 29-10-1992 and the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector is of 30-10-1992. Under these circumstances, we feel it expedient that no rider should be put on the Assistant Collector concerned while deciding the case afresh as has been done by the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector concerned should be asked to adjudicate the case afresh according to law after giving full opportunity to the respondents to put forth their claim. In other words, while deciding the issue afresh the Assistant Collector would not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
