I T C LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(SC)-2004-7-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on July 15,2004

I.T.C.LTD Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is against the Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "cegat") dated 1st August, 1997. The appellants buy duty paid aluminium foil, subject the same to process of printing. The printed sheets are then moved to a die cutting machine where they are perforated and cut to shape of a blade tuck. The scrap material is stripped off from the sheets and the shaped pieces are packed into containers. The question for consideration is whether the shaped pieces fall under Tariff Item 7606.30 or under Tariff item 7616.90. The relevant Tariff Entries read as follows : 76. 07 Aluminium foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paperboard, plastics or similar backing material) of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0. 2 mm 50% plus Rs. 4000 7607.10 - Plain 50% plus Rs. 4000 per tonne. 7607.20 - Embossed 50% plus Rs. 4000 per tonne. 7607.30 - Perforated or cut to-shape 50% plus Rs. 4000 per tonne. 707.40 -Coated 50% plus Rs. 4000 per tonne. 7607.50 - Printed 50% plus Rs. 4000 per tonne. 7607.60- Backed 50% plus Rs. 4000 76.16other articles of aluminium 7616.10 - Nails, tacks, staples (other than those of heading No. 83. 05) , screws, bolts, nuts, screw hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter-pins, washers and similar articles 20% 7616.90 - Other 25%
(2.) The Tribunal has by the impugned judgment, held that through a series of operations these goods assumed a shape of a complete container and that except glueing after goods are put in the container nothing remains to be done. The Tribunal has held that two decisions of the Tribunal itself in the caseof I. T. C. Ltd. v. C. C. E. reported in 1995 (80) ELT 291, and in the case of hind Packaging Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 (75) ELT 313, were distinguishable. There is however no finding that at the time goods are cleared by the appellants they are folded and glued. Mr. Rajan Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants states that at the time of clearing, the goods are merely cut into the shape of a blade tuck and packed accordingly.
(3.) Item No. 7607.30 specifically covers Aluminium Foil which are perforated and cut to shape. The term 'cut to shape' must necessarily mean cut to the shape of some goods or item. Merely because it is cut to the shape of a particular goods or item would not mean that it falls out of that Tariff Item. To take an item out of Tariff Item 7607 the Aluminium Foil should not just be cut to shape but must thereafter have assumed the character of or become some other article. In other words the Aluminium Foil will only fall out of tariff Item 7607 when it actually is folded and glued to become a blade tuck. Tariff Item 7616.90 can only apply provided the goods does not fall into any of the other Tariff Items. Thus, if it is covered by Item No. 7607.30 then it cannot be covered by Tariff Item 7616.90.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.