Double excise levy on printed aluminium foils rejected where duty was already paid under the same tariff entry.

Printed aluminium foils that had already suffered duty under Item 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff were not liable to a second levy merely because they were printed or coated, since the same tariff entry already covered foils in those treated forms. The text states that the decisive tariff test was whether duty had already been discharged under the relevant head, and an unchanged entry did not support reimposition of duty on the same goods after further processing. It also distinguishes Empire Industries, explaining that it concerned retrospective amendment of the manufacture definition and substituted tariff items for textile fabrics, and did not authorise a second levy under an unchanged tariff entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether printed aluminium foils, made from aluminium foil on which duty had already been paid under Item 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff, were again chargeable to duty under the same item; (ii) whether the Supreme Court decision in Empire Industries supported a second levy on such printed foils.

Issue (i): Whether printed aluminium foils, made from aluminium foil on which duty had already been paid under Item 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff, were again chargeable to duty under the same item.

Analysis: Item 27(c) described foils whether or not embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed, or otherwise treated. The description treated all such forms as foils under the same tariff entry and did not create separate chargeable goods merely because the foil had been printed or coated. Once aluminium foil had discharged duty under that very entry, the same product could not be subjected to duty again merely because it underwent printing or coating. The essential tariff test was whether the article had already paid duty under the relevant head.

Conclusion: The printed aluminium foils were not chargeable to duty again under Item 27(c); the levy was held to be unwarranted and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court decision in Empire Industries supported a second levy on such printed foils.

Analysis: The reference to Empire Industries was explained as turning on retrospective amendment of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and on the substituted tariff items for processed textile fabrics. That decision upheld the amended legal position for fabrics and did not lay down that duty could be reimposed under an unchanged tariff entry simply because a process amounting to manufacture had occurred. The case was therefore distinguishable and did not authorise a second levy on printed aluminium foils under the same tariff item.

Conclusion: Empire Industries did not govern the present dispute and did not justify the impugned demand; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the demand and related penalties were set aside, and the goods were held not liable to a second levy under the same tariff entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods have already borne duty under a specific tariff entry, a further process does not attract a second levy under the same entry unless the statute or tariff expressly creates such additional charge.

---