Container classification of corrugated paper products depends on independent existence, not shape assumed after insertion of contents.

Corrugated paper sheets cut, joined and folded around an electric bulb were held not to become cartons or containers merely by assuming a container-like shape after insertion of the bulb. A container must have an independent existence and be recognisable as such before contents are placed inside it. On that test, the product was neither a carton nor a flattened carton, and reliance on CCCN notes did not alter the position. As the goods did not answer the description of cartons, classification under Item 17(3) was unsustainable, and the related levy, duty demand and penalty based on that classification could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the corrugated paper product, after being cut, joined, and folded around an electric bulb, became a carton or container classifiable under Item 17(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the process amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of that Act.

Analysis: The goods were obtained as printed corrugated sheets and were merely cut and folded into a drum-like form to hold a bulb. A container must be an article that has an independent existence and is recognisable as a container before the contents are inserted into it. An article cannot become a container merely because it assumes that shape after another article is placed inside it. On that test, the product was neither a carton nor a flattened carton, and the reliance on CCCN notes did not assist the classification. Since the goods did not answer the description of cartons, the levy, classification, duty demand, and penalty based on that premise could not stand.

Conclusion: The goods were not cartons falling under Item 17(3), and the classification adopted by the Collector was unsustainable.

---