Collector, Central Excise, Madras etc. Vs. M/s I.T.C. Limited, Bihar etc.

Appeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 12043-54 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.94 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Central) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2726/83-C, C/963/83-C, 1422/85-C etc. against Order No. 91 to 102/94-C)

Petitioner: Collector, Central Excise, Madras etc.

Respondent: M/s I.T.C. Limited, Bihar etc.

Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 12043-54 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.94 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Central) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2726/83-C, C/963/83-C, 1422/85-C etc. against Order No. 91 to 102/94-C)

Judges: M.B. SHAH & ARUN KUMAR, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Feb 06, 2003

Mr. K. Swami, Ms. Smitha Inna, Ms. Prabha Swami and Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him for the Appellants.

Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. Sasidharan, Mr. Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ms. Sushma Sharma, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Mr. A.R. Madhava Rao and Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocates with him for the Respondents.

CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Tariff Item no. 17 – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rules 8, 71, 72, 74 and 93 – Central excise duty – Exemption from duty in terms of exemption notification – Duty on excisable tobacco products – Meaning of ‘box’ and ‘other packaging container’ – Whether a cigarette packet is a ‘box’ or ‘other packing container’ – Tariff Item 17(4) specifying rate of duty in respect of ‘boxes, cartons, bags and other packing containers – Exemption notification dated 28.2.1982 providing for duty exemption on articles of paper or paper board falling under Tariff Item 17(4) but notification specifically excluding printed boxes and printed cartons from the said exemption – Respondents being cigarette manufacturers claiming the exemption under the notification in respect of cigarette packets – Department taking the stand that the cigarette packets being printed boxes the exemption in terms of the notification cannot be made available – Tribunal however holding in favour of the respondents and granting exemption – Validity. Allowing the Department’s appeal held that the description of ‘cigarette packet’ containing shell and the slide covering all sides would fit in the meaning of the word ‘box’ and cannot be considered to be ‘other packing container’ and therefore duty is leviable on cigarette packets in terms of Tariff Item 17. Order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise accordingly restored.

For interpreting tariff entries trade meaning as well as dictionary meaning is also required to be considered to reconcile and harmonise the tariff entry. In the present case, meaning of the word ‘box’ for the purpose of interpreting the tariff item would be – a case or receptacle usually rectangular or cylindrical and with a lid of wooden, metal, card etc. Hence, the description of ‘cigarette packet’ would fit in the meaning of the word ‘box’ as it is a rectangular receptacle with a lid with a protective case or a covering for cigarettes. Further, the meaning of the word ‘container’ in context of the tariff item would be – (1) that contains a receptacle or flexible covering for shipments or transport of goods; (2) it will be relatively large, reusable enclosure filled with smaller packages; and (3) it may contain number of boxes. But, it should not be by itself box, carton or bag. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that cigarette packet is ‘other packing container’. (Para 16)

It is apparent that a cigarette packet containing shell and the slide covering all sides would be a box. Further, there is no question of double taxation because excise duty on cigarettes is separately levied and in regard to packet containing cigarettes, duty is to be levied on the basis of Tariff Item 17. (Para 23)

1. Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1992 (58) ELT 418 (Madras)) (Para 14)
2. G. Claridge & Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (JT 1991 (1) SC 549) (Para 6)
3. Zupiter Printery and Another v. Union of India etc. (1991 (34) ECR 7 (Delhi)) (Para 14)
4. Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (JT 1990 (1) SC 256) (Para 15)
5. Collector of Central Excise v. Punjab Anand Lamps Industries (JT 1989 (Suppl.) SC 251) (Para 12)
6. Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat (1969 (1) SCR 235) (Para 6)

FOREIGN CASE REFERRED:
1. Grenfell v. Inland Revenue Commissioner ((1876) 1 Ex. D 242)

Shah, J.
1. Question requiring determination in these appeals is – whether ‘cigarette packets’ would be ‘other packing containers’ or ‘boxes’ within the meaning of Tariff Item No.17 of Central Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act)? It is the contention of the Department that cigarette packet is a ‘small paper box’ and cannot be termed as a ‘container’ which is relatively a large enclosure. On behalf of the