1987 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacture as including printing and lacquering of containers, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by his Order No. 1864/BI-318/81 and No. 1866/BI-320/81 both dated 13-1-1982 and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division P. Bombay by his two orders dated 6-8-1980 said that the duty paid unprinted aluminium colapsible tubes should pay duty again under the same item after they are printed. This is not a correct action. The learned Director for M/s. Impact Containers, Mr. Patel said that the unprinted metal aluminium tubes were duty-paid, and printing and lacquering had been done before the budget changes made 18-6-1980. Therefore in accordance with the judgment of the Kirloskar Brothers v. Union of India - 1978 (2) E.L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the budget of 1980 placed the printed and lacquered containers in the same item as unprinted plain containers. That means, plain containers and printed containers became leviable from 19-6-1980 under the same heading to the same duty. The budget did not introduce a separate heading or sub-heading for printed lacquered containers, but it entered the description in the same head with unprinted plain containers. The effect, therefore, is that the printed containers will be subject to the same rate of duty under the same head as plain unprinted containers. 5. Now the aim of the amendment is clear - that a container whether plain or printed whether lacquered or bar, would suffer the same duty and that the man who produces lacquered pri....