2000 (1) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Graphic Print Pack is whether the product manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 83.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under Heading 76.07 as claimed by Appellants. 2. Shri P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lassified under Heading 76.07. He also mentioned that the demand of differential duty for the period when the approved classification list was in force cannot be made and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of C.C.E., Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). Finally he submitted that the demand has to be recalculated in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larations of the products manufactured by them. 4.  We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Aluminium foils are classifiable under Heading 76.07. Heading 83.09 applies to stoppers, caps and lids, capsules for bottles, threaded bungs, bung covers, seals and other packing accessories, of base metal. It is admitted position that the Appellants get aluminium foils which are print....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tangular or square, of any size provided that they do not assume the character of articles or products of other headings. As the product in question assumes the character of articles of Heading 83.09, it can not be classified as foil. We agree with the learned S.D.R. that the ratio of the decision in Cotspun case, supra, will not apply as in the present matter there was no approved classification ....