1991 (3) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Satish Kumar, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order dated 25-7-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. The appellants, herein, manufacture aluminium collapsible tubes falling under erstwhile T.I. 27 CET. They cleared the tubes fitted with plastic caps and discharged duty liability on tube....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed the decision of the CEGAT reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 956 that fitting of caps to tubes is not manufacture and that aluminium tubes are liable to duty without the plastic caps because these are manufactured separately. The show cause notice was also assailed as it did not quantify the duty demanded. The plastic caps are generally supplied by the customers. He also relied upon the case of Ext....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts therein. The Tribunal considered the scope of Tariff Item 27 CET with the Explanation thereto regarding 'containers' and held that even without the plastic cap the aluminium collapsible tube remains the same and will satisfy the tariff description 'containers' under Item 27 with its Explanation, and that further the caps have to be treated separately while charging duty on aluminium as envisage....