9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff. They manufacture printed shells and printed H.L. Blanks . They filed classification lists dated 9-3-1982 and 23-4-1982 respectively classifying these products under TI-68 and claiming benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 104/82, dated 28-2-1982. The Assistant Collector classified both the products under TI 17(4) as printed boxes (slide type of boxes and printed boxes in flattened/unassembled condition and denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 66/82, dated 28-2-1982. The asseessees preferred an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) contending that the printed shells are not known in common parlance as boxes or cartons and, therefore, cannot be classified under TI 17(4), but are classifiable under TI 68 and as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g amount of Rs. 16,27,498.74. Both the Department and the assessees preferred appeals against the order of the Assistant Collector and by order dated 20-6-1988 the Collector (Appeals), Bombay held as under : The Assistant Collector. in his impugned order has held that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has in his order-in-appeal classified the appellants products viz. shells and blanks under TI 68 without speaking anything about the admissibility of the exemption under Notification No. 104/82 which exempts the products as products of printing industry. In his order-in appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has only held that the products in question are classifiable under TI 68 in the dispute between the two ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2 Against this order the Department has preferred E/2865/88-C on the ground that the classification of the items is based upon an order of the Government of India which related to pre-1982 description of T.I. 17 which did not contain any entry regarding boxes and cartons and packing containers, and while after 1982 budget which enlarged the description of T.I. 17, the assessee s products were classifiable under Item 17(4) upto 28-2-1983 and thereafter i.e. from 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1986 under TI 17(3). The prayer in the above appeal is for remand of the matter to the Assistant Collector with directions to keep the refund issue pending till the Appeal No. E/2449/86 filed by the Department against the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned DR contends that these are classifiable under TI 17(4) as cartons or boxes as they are only cartons in flattened or unassembled form and they are not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 66/82 which excludes cartons and boxes from its scope. In reply, the learned Counsel Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, for the assessees draws our attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of India Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in [1994 (71) E.LT. 547] wherein the non-dutiability of outer shells was conceded by the learned DR in that case on the basis of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Zupiter Printery and wherein the Tribunal has held that the reasoning which led the High Court of Madra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be construed to mean packing containers which are analogous to boxes and cartons i.e. an enclosed receptacle which can be used for storage and transportation of articles. The shell i.e. the product of the petitioner is open from both the sides. In the absence of the slide, this shell by itself will not be in a position to hold the cigarettes. The broad description of the shell does not fit in the expression of boxes or container. The question for consideration before the High Court was whether the outer shell manufactured by the petitioner which has no lid and is open from both the sides can hold and keep cigarettes and the question was answered in the negative. The Court further held that box" has a definite meaning as understood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be subjected to any separate assessment. 6. The issue before the Tribunal in the case of India Tobacco Company v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in [1994 (71) E.L.T. 547] was whether the printed board articles described as follows - 1. Outer shells only; 2. Outer shells alongwith slides; 3. Hinge lids cut out and inner frames. are printed cartons which include within their scope valid and flattened containers of paper and paper board within the description of TI 17(4) as it stood before 1-3-1986 read with Notification No. 66/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Tribunal held that outer shells were not dutiable, upon the basis of the concession made by the learned DR and upon the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
