Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether composite containers with printed labels pasted on the outer surface, containing metal inserts, were classifiable under Heading 4818.13 of the Central Excise Tariff or under the residuary Heading 4818.19.
Analysis: The classification turned on whether the goods could properly be treated as cartons, boxes or cases within Heading 4818.13. The presence of metal inserts excluded classification under Heading 4818.12, which covered printed cartons, boxes, containers and cases made wholly of paper or paperboard. The decisive question was whether the goods, though printed, were in substance cartons, boxes or cases. As no evidence was shown to establish that the composite containers fell within those categories, and the reasoning accepted that containers other than cartons, boxes and cases would not be covered by Heading 4818.13, the residuary entry was held applicable.
Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 4818.13 and were rightly classifiable under Heading 4818.19. The appeal by the Revenue failed.
Final Conclusion: The Departmental appeals were rejected and the assessee's classification under the residuary tariff entry was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where composite packing articles cannot be shown to be cartons, boxes or cases, they do not fall within the specific printed-container heading and are classifiable under the residuary tariff heading.