TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Printed Shells & H.L. Blanks: Tribunal Seeks Resolution</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus VIJAY FLEXIBLE CONTAINERS (P) LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus VIJAY FLEXIBLE CONTAINERS (P) LTD. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 203 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of printed shells and H.L. Blanks under Central Excise Tariff, eligibility for exemption under Notification 104/82, refund claims, classification under TI 17(4) or TI 68, benefit of Notification 66/82, unjust enrichment, applicability of case laws.Analysis:1. Classification of Printed Shells and H.L. Blanks:The appeals involved classification issues of printed shells and H.L. Blanks under TI 17 and TI 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector classified the products under TI 17(4) as printed boxes, denying the benefit of exemption under Notification 66/82. The assessees contended that the products should be classified under TI 68 and claimed exemption under Notification 104/82. The lower appellate authority upheld the assessees' claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal.2. Refund Claims and Unjust Enrichment:Regarding the refund claims, the Assistant Collector allowed a partial refund, considering the difference in duty rates between TI 17(4) and TI 68. The Collector (Appeals) directed a reexamination of the eligibility for exemption under Notification 104/82 and addressed the issue of unjust enrichment. The Department appealed for remand pending the classification appeal, emphasizing the pre-1982 description of TI 17.3. Legal Arguments and Case Laws:The legal arguments revolved around the classification of printed shells and H.L. Blanks. The Department argued for classification under TI 17(4) based on case laws, while the assessees cited precedents supporting their classification under TI 68. Reference was made to judgments like Zupiter Printing case and Rollatainers case to support the arguments presented.4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal analyzed the case laws cited by both parties, including Zupiter Printing and Asia Tobacco cases. It noted the distinction between outer shells and complete packets, emphasizing the marketability of the products. The Tribunal disagreed with the reasoning in the India Tobacco case and decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution, as the classification under TI 17(4) or TI 68 remained contentious.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the complexity of classifying printed shells and H.L. Blanks under the Central Excise Tariff, addressing issues of exemption eligibility, refund claims, and the application of relevant case laws. The decision to refer the matter to a Larger Bench reflects the need for further clarity on the classification of these products under the tariff headings.
TaxTMI 