Classification of printed catch covers as containers under heading 4819.12 was upheld, while notification-based duty liability was unproved.

Printed catch covers manufactured by printing, punching, creasing and pasting to form a container for pharmaceutical strips were treated as containers under heading 4819.12, because the evidence supported their character as container goods rather than mere wrappers or printed matter. The contrary description was not supported by sample evidence or material disproving the department's classification. However, the department did not substantiate the applicability of Notification No. 67/82, as no material was produced to show that the goods were chargeable to duty under that notification. The lower authority's classification was modified accordingly, while duty liability under the notification was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether printed catch covers were classifiable as printed containers under heading 4819.12 or as printed matter under heading 4901.90. (ii) Whether the department had established that the goods were chargeable to duty under Notification No. 67/82 dated 28-2-1982.

Issue (i): Whether printed catch covers were classifiable as printed containers under heading 4819.12 or as printed matter under heading 4901.90.

Analysis: The dispute related only to the printed catch covers. The record showed that the goods were manufactured by printing, punching, creasing and pasting so as to form a container for holding strips of pharmaceutical products. The contrary plea that they were merely covers, wrappers or advertisement material was not supported by sample evidence or by material disproving the department's description of the product.

Conclusion: The printed catch covers were held to be containers falling under heading 4819.12.

Issue (ii): Whether the department had established that the goods were chargeable to duty under Notification No. 67/82 dated 28-2-1982.

Analysis: Although the goods were treated as containers, the department failed to produce material or evidence showing that they were chargeable to duty under the notification. The contention on applicability of the notification remained unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The applicability of Notification No. 67/82 was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the lower authority was modified to treat the goods as containers under heading 4819.12, while the claim of duty liability under the notification was not accepted.

---