Product "Johnson Plast Cartridge (Adhesive tape)" classified as container under tariff item 46-CET. Appeal dismissed.

HUSENA METAL WORKS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

HUSENA METAL WORKS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 527 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of goods under tariff item 46-CET

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of goods under tariff item 46-CET
The case revolved around the classification of the product "Johnson Plast Cartridge (Adhesive tape)" under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants contended that the product should be classified under T.I. 68-CET and be exempt from duty. However, the Assistant Collector classified it under tariff item 46-CET, which deals with metal containers not elsewhere specified. The explanation provided in the tariff for 'containers' includes various types of containers used for packing goods. The question was whether the product in question, manufactured by the appellants for adhesive tapes, fits the description of a container as per the tariff.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the product as a container
The product in question was manufactured by the appellants for supply to another company that manufactures adhesive tapes. These tapes are wound on plastic spools, which are then fitted into the subject goods before sale. The Department argued that since the spools are fitted into the product, it qualifies as a container for the spools, falling under tariff item 46-CET. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the product does not have a top or bottom to be considered a container and is merely a cover for the plastic spools. They argued that the spools could be sold separately without the covers, indicating that the product is not a container.

Issue 3: Determination of the product as a container
The Tribunal examined the construction of the product and how it interacts with the spools. It was noted that the cartridges are fabricated in a way that snugly holds the spools inside, preventing them from being dislodged without manual pressure. The spools are engaged in such a manner that they cannot be removed from the cartridges without applying pressure from one end. Despite the lack of a top or bottom, the Tribunal concluded that the product functions as a container for the spools due to its design and the way it securely holds the spools. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the product under tariff item 46-CET, as determined by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification of the product as a container under tariff item 46-CET based on its design and functionality in securely holding the spools.