9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry attracting nil rate of duty. The Assistant Collector vide his order No. V/48/B/1/89-BC, dated 6-2-91 rejected the appellants claim for classification of the products in question under sub-heading 4901.90 on the ground that being in the nature of cartons/containers they could not be deemed as excluded from the purview of Heading 48 in terms of Note 8 of Chapter 48 since printing on these articles was merely incidental and their primary use was for packing of cigarettes. He, therefore, held that all the products mentioned in the classification list dated 8-7-89 except printed racks were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 during the period 1-3-86 to 29-2-88 and under sub-heading 4819.12 from 1-3-88 onwards. As regards printed racks he held that they were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 during the period 1-3-86 to 29-2-88 and under sub-heading 4819.90 from 1-3-88 onwards as other articles of paper/paper board. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Madras who vide his order-in-appeal No. 41/92(M), dated 6-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under sub-heading 4818.13 and not under sub-heading 4818.19 as claimed by them. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 12-5-87 rejected the appellants contention that Heading 48.18 covered only complete articles will and shells and slides not being complete or finished articles by themselves were not classifiable under the said sub-heading. He held that the assessees were clearing shells and slides together and shells and slides when put together form a container or box usable for packing cigarettes. He, therefore, held that slides and shells were complete articles classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the appellant s preferred an appeal before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta who by his order dated 29-2-88 rejected the appellants contention that if at all shells and slides were treated as excisable items, they would merit classification under sub-heading 4818.19. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector that the products shells and slides together answer to the description of other printed cartons, boxes and cases of sub-heading 4818.13. 2.4 E/2946/88-C. - The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer which is a vital requirement for the marketing of product like cigarettes. He referred to certain published material on the subject of packaging and pointed out that attractive packaging increases the product s appeal and helps in differentiating the product from competitive makes. He argued that the major activity in preparing the disputed item being printing they would be fit to be treated as Products of Printing Industry . He added that on account of the vital nature of the information given on the packets and in view of the importance of attractive packaging needed for promoting the particular brand of cigarettes and the manufacturer s image, the printing on items in question could not be deemed as merely incidental. He stated that according to the Webstor 3rd New International Dictionary, word Incidental means a subordinate or incidental or minor item, but printing was not merely incidental or unimportant to the primary use of the articles in question and accordingly they would be excluded from the purview of Heading 48 of the Tariff. He contended that in case his claim or classification of the disputed items under sub-heading 4901.90 was not found to be acceptable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or parts of packets used for packing of cigarettes and do not by themselves constitute complete packets/cartons. They have claimed that these products have to be deemed as classifiable under sub-heading 4909.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as products of printing industry. It has been contended that the printing on these items is not merely incidental to the use of the products but on the contrary it imparts on the products certain statutory information as required under Cigarettes (Regulation of Printing, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975, Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and also the Trade Mark of the appellant-company as required under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the notifications issued therein. It has been stated that the disputed items require sophisticated printing on advanced printing machines. It has been contended that under these circumstances the printing of the disputed articles apart from giving vital statutory information also enhances the product appeal and differentiates it from other competing makes. It has been contended that under these circumstances the printing on the disputed products cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged that most of the stages through which the printed carton as a product is processed relate to printing and primarily the printing machines and presses are used in the process. It is thus contended that the product is of Printing Industry and not of Packaging Industry. The argument has been lucidly dealt with the Division Bench of the High Court and rejected on the following reasoning :- The classification of manufactured goods cannot be dependent merely upon their place or production. The product wherever produced must be classified having regard to what it means and how it is understood in common parlance. The guiding factor is not where it is produced, but what is produced [See 1989 (3) E.L.T. 175 (S.C.)]. There appears to be no principle on which a distinction can be drawn between an ordinary carton and a printed carton, and to hold that an ordinary carton is a product of a packaging industry, while a printed carton is a product of the printing industry, if it emerges in its final shape from a printing press. At best it can be said that with technological advancement, it has become possible to have composite industry which can provide a variety of services, not necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading 4901.90 as claimed by the appellants would be ruled out. 10. On behalf of M/s. ITC Ltd. Shri Ravinder Narain has submitted that in case the appellants claim for classification of the disputed items under sub-heading 4901.90 is not found to be acceptable then their alternative claim for classification of the disputed items except printed shells would be sub-heading 4819.90 for the period 1-3-86 to 29-2-88 on the analogy of the Tribunal s decision in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 478 in respect of inner slides of cigarettes packets and from 1-3-88 onwards under sub-heading 4823.90 since in the revised tariff which came in force from 1-3-86 sub-heading 4823.90 correspondent to sub-heading 4018.90 in the tariff which was in force up to 29-2-88. As regards the classification of the printed shells and hingelids for cigarette packets he has submitted that he would rely on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zupitor Printing Another v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (34) ECR 7 wherein it was held that the outer shell for cigarettes packets have to be deemed as non-excisable on account of being not marketable. In this regard i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by entry 20. In our view, it is not possible to accept such a construction. There is nothing in that entry to indicate that the Legislature intended to give to the word articles the meaning which Mr. Nanavati seeks to attach to it, and equally there is no indication in that entry to show that an article does not mean what its ordinary and dictionary meaning is, namely, a particular commodity or a thing for sale. It may be that the word article may include not only a particular commodity but also a component part. But that would not mean the same thing which Mr. Nanavati contends for, namely, that the article that is spoken of in 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/paperboard to size and shape an 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/paperboard covered by Heading 48.18 and will correctly be classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90. 14. In the judgment cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s who are engaged mainly in the manufacture of cigarette packets and their parts. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for M/s. I.T.C. that the slides for cigarette packets are not marketable and would therefore not be liable to duty under sub-heading 4818.90. 10. We find that none of the disputed items can be deemed as complete packet or carton since they are only in the nature of components or parts of packets. Evidently other disputed items meant for use as parts of cigarette packets fall in the same category as slide for cigarette packet since it is made by cutting printed paper/paperboard to size and thereafter giving it a definite shape. Hence on the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 478 all these items namely, printed shells, toplid flaps, printed hinglid cutouts and printed racks have to be deemed as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 up to 29-2-88 and under sub-heading 4823.90 from 1-3-88 onwards since in the Tariff which came in force w.e.f. 1-3-88 sub-heading 4823.90 corresponds to the sub-heading 4819.90 in the earlier tariff. 11. In App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
