TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (5) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and considered the points raised by the petitioners in their revision application and those urged at the time of personal hearing. 2. In this case, the Asstt. Collector had demanded duty on the goods said to be lipstick containers manufactured by the petitioners, after holding that the said goods were classifiable as aluminium containers under item 27(f) of Central Excise Tariff as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and the demand could not be sustained under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules; the demands of duty relating to the period 1971 to 1974 having been raised in 1976 was clearly time-barred. 4. At the time of the first hearing before the Government of India on 6-12-1980, the petitioners reiterated the points raised in their revision application. On the occasion of the second hearing on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which being a hollow tube with both ends open, cannot by itself hold the lipstick. 5. The Government agree with the above contentions. In the instant case, the sleeve made of anodized aluminium is a hollow tube with both ends open which does not per se perform the function of a container for the lipstick. Therefore, in that view of the matter the impugned goods cannot be classified as 'containers....