Tariff classification of plant canisters failed where evidence showed storage use, not packaging goods for sale.

Aluminium canisters used mainly for storage and internal conveyance within a plant were treated as outside Tariff Item No. 27(f), because they were not ordinarily intended for packaging goods for sale. Correspondence from purchasers and the material before the excise authorities showed only limited transfer for bottling operations, while the department's later change of view was unsupported by evidence. As the burden lay on the department to establish that the goods fell within the tariff entry, the excise demand based on that classification was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium canisters manufactured for storage and internal conveyance in a plant were covered by Tariff Item No. 27(f) as containers ordinarily intended for packaging of goods for sale, and whether the excise demand based on that classification was sustainable.

Analysis: The canisters were shown, by the purchasers' letters and the material before the excise authorities, to be used predominantly for storage and conveyance within the plant, and only a small fraction were transferred for bottling operations. The earlier departmental view had accepted that the canisters were non-excisable because they were not ordinarily intended for packaging of goods for sale. The later reversal was made without any supporting material, and the authorities below did not properly consider the relevant correspondence and facts. Since the department had the burden to establish that the goods fell within the tariff entry, and no material was shown to justify the revised classification, the demand was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: Tariff Item No. 27(f) was not attracted, and the excise demand was invalid.

---