1995 (11) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent. [Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. -  Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the refund claims, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of B.O.P.P. (Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene) Film falling under Tariff Item 39.20. This product is a flexible plastic film used for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e printing cost in determining the assessable value or they may be allowed to pay duty on the unprinted goods and then clear the same without printing from their factory. Both the contentions of the appellants are incorrect. The classification being decided whether the goods are cleared unprinted or printed there would not be any difference in classification of the goods. The excisable goods are t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of the Collector (Appeals) is in line with the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of System Packaging Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1990 (45) E.L.T. 165] wherein it was held that for classifying the goods under Heading 4920.90, it will have to be shown as required by Statutory Note 8 to Chapter 48 that the printing on the base paper is not merely incidental to the primary use of the articles. Sinc....