Marketability of printed paperboard articles led to residuary excise classification, while exemption under Notification No. 104/82 was denied.

Printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks cut from printed paperboard were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process gave them a distinct name, identity and marketability in trade. The order applied the tests of common parlance and marketability, and held that these articles were not covered by the specific packing-container tariff entry; they therefore fell under the residuary tariff item. On exemption, the articles were held outside Notification No. 104/82 because they were not regarded as products of the printing industry within the relevant annexure. The alternative benefit under Notification No. 66/82 was noted only if the specific packing-container tariff entry applied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks made from printed paperboard were excisable goods and classifiable under erstwhile T.I. 68 rather than T.I. 17(4) / 17(3); (ii) whether such goods were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 104/82 and, if treated under T.I. 17(4), whether Notification No. 66/82 would apply.

Issue (i): Whether printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks made from printed paperboard were excisable goods and classifiable under erstwhile T.I. 68 rather than T.I. 17(4) / 17(3).

Analysis: The articles were produced by cutting printed paperboard to size and making further cuts so that they could be folded and assembled into cigarette packets. On that process, they acquired distinct names, distinct identity and a market presence in the cigarette industry. The earlier High Court decisions on outer shells and slides were treated as binding only on the limited question whether those articles could be regarded as boxes, cartons or packing containers under T.I. 17(4), and not as deciding that they were not goods at all or that they could never fall under another tariff entry. Applying the tests of marketability and common parlance, and relying on the reasoning in the Supreme Court and High Court authorities discussed in the order, the articles were held to be goods. Since they were not covered by T.I. 17(4), they were held to fall within the residuary T.I. 68.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the articles were held classifiable under T.I. 68 and not under T.I. 17(4) / 17(3).

Issue (ii): Whether such goods were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 104/82 and, if treated under T.I. 17(4), whether Notification No. 66/82 would apply.

Analysis: Notification No. 104/82 exempted only goods falling under T.I. 68 and specified in its annexure. Printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks were held not to be products of the printing industry within the meaning of the relevant entry in the annexure; they were treated as products of the packaging line and not as goods covered by the notification. On the alternative question, the order stated that if the articles were treated under T.I. 17(4), the benefit of Notification No. 66/82 would be available, but that contingency did not arise on the majority finding.

Conclusion: The assessee was held not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 104/82; the alternative benefit under Notification No. 66/82 was indicated only on the premise that T.I. 17(4) applied.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the articles were held to be dutiable under the residuary tariff entry and the impugned classification in favour of the assessee was substantially sustained, while exemption under Notification No. 104/82 was denied.

Ratio Decidendi: Printed paperboard articles that acquire a distinct name, identity and marketability in trade are goods for excise purposes and, if they do not answer the tariff description of boxes, cartons or packing containers, they fall under the residuary entry rather than the specific packing-container entry.

---