I.T.C. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 11530, 11537 and 11540 of 1540
Petitioner: I.T.C. Limited
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 11530, 11537 and 11540 of 1540
Judges: J.S. VERMA, C.J., B.N. KIRPAL & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 11, 1997
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Chapter 48 – Note 8 – Primary use of articles – Connected with packaging cigarettes and printing incidental there to – Held that Tribunal has rightly held the articles classifiable under Ch. 48 and not under 4901.90. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assesses and the learned Additional Solicitor General. We are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and its reasons for that conclusion are correct. The conclusion of the Tribunal is stated thus:
“In view of the above discussion we find no force in the appellants’ contention that the classification of the disputed articles under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would be ruled out in terms of Note 8 to Chapter 48 on account of printing on the said items being not merely incidental to their primary use. We hold that on account of the primary use of the articles in question being in connection with the packaging of cigarettes and the printing there being merely incidental to their primary use that would be correctly classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and their classification under Sub- Heading 4901,90 as claimed by the applicants would be ruled out.”
2. Accordingly there is no merit in these appeals and are dismissed.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assesses and the learned Additional Solicitor General. We are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and its reasons for that conclusion are correct. The conclusion of the Tribunal is stated thus:
“In view of the above discussion we find no force in the appellants’ contention that the classification of the disputed articles under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would be ruled out in terms of Note 8 to Chapter 48 on account of printing on the said items being not merely incidental to their primary use. We hold that on account of the primary use of the articles in question being in connection with the packaging of cigarettes and the printing there being merely incidental to their primary use that would be correctly classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and their classification under Sub- Heading 4901,90 as claimed by the applicants would be ruled out.”
2. Accordingly there is no merit in these appeals and are dismissed.
