Tariff classification of cigarette packet inner slides under residuary paper-board entry upheld despite challenge to marketability.

Inner slides for cigarette packets, cut from printed paper or paper board, were held not to fall within the specific sub-headings for cartons, boxes, containers or cases under Heading 48.18, because a slide standing alone is not itself a carton or container merely due to its use with a shell; they were instead classifiable under the residuary sub-heading for other articles of paper or paper-board. The slides were also found marketable, since they had a distinct identity, were used in the cigarette industry, and the evidence did not show that they were incapable of sale. On that basis, the slides were treated as excisable goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inner slides for cigarette packets, made by cutting printed paper or paper board to size and shape, were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 or 4818.19 or under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90 of Heading 48.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether such slides were marketable and therefore excisable goods.

Issue (i): Whether inner slides for cigarette packets, made by cutting printed paper or paper board to size and shape, were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 or 4818.19 or under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90 of Heading 48.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Under Heading 48.18, the specific sub-headings for cartons, boxes, containers and cases did not cover a slide standing alone. A slide, by itself, could not be treated as a carton, box or container merely because, when combined with the shell, it formed a cigarette packet. The wording of the tariff controlled classification, and the absence of a specific reference to parts did not exclude the residuary coverage of "other articles of paper or paper-board".

Conclusion: The slides were not classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 or 4818.19 and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90.

Issue (ii): Whether such slides were marketable and therefore excisable goods.

Analysis: Marketability had to be tested for the goods as produced, and not denied merely because the slides were used as parts of cigarette packets. The slides had a specific identity, were used extensively in the cigarette industry, and were shown to be products for which classification lists had been filed. The evidence did not establish that they were incapable of being bought and sold in the market.

Conclusion: The slides were marketable and excisable.

Final Conclusion: The common decision upheld the residuary classification of the slides under Heading 48.18 and rejected both competing challenges to the classification, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the plain terms of the heading and sub-headings govern, and a separately identifiable component product with marketability may be treated as an excisable article under the residuary entry even if it is used as a part of a larger commercial article.

---