9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l excise authorities sought to bring the 'labels' within heading no. 4819 90 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 whereas assessee, vide declaration dated 1st March 1999, classified the goods as appropriate to 'paper or paperboard labels of all kinds whether or not printed' in heading no. 4821 00 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. While the latter was entitled to 'nil' rate of duty on clearance, the former would entail duty @16% ad valorem. Two show cause notices, dated 9th July 1999 and 9th September 1999, were issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 2,57,690/- and Rs. 1,79,044/- respectively for the period from 1st March 1999 to 31st July 1999. The first appellate authority upheld the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Tariff Act, 1985 prevailing before 1988 was identical to heading no. 4819 after the restructuring of tariff headings; it was in that context that the classification under heading no. 4821 was upheld to be incorrect. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for appellant contends that the classification decided by the Tribunal had adjudged the classification to be under heading no. 4818 90 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which, after the amendment, was intended only for 'articles of paper' and 'not printed cartons.' It is also contended that the adjudicating authority had erred in relying upon the order of Tribunal in the face of classification undertaken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Learned Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 644(SC)]. Further, by placing reliance on the tariff headings, she submits that the article in question cannot come under any heading other than heading 4819 90 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4. We find that the decision of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertains to clearances effected prior to amendment of structure in the Tariff. On a perusal of the earlier order of the Tribunal in a dispute of the appellant herein, we find that the product in dispute is a 'flat piece of printed paper' placed as a sleeve on the aluminium foil pouch for packing of cigarettes and bears the brand, manufacturer and other details relevant to the product. The issue is whether such paper is a carton. Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
