2001(04)LCX0085

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)

AMPRO PACKAGING INDS. LTD.

Versus

COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., HYDERABAD

Final Order No. 595/2001, dated 27-4-2001 in Appeal Nos. E/429/95 with E/CO/305/95

CASE CITED

Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 1994(11)LCX0059 Eq 1995 (075) ELT 0313 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 2, 4]

Advocated By :   Shri V.J. Sankaram, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri S. Arumugam, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The issue involved in this appeal, is as to whether the product ‘Aluminium foil laminated and printed with advertising material’ is required to be classified as plain polyethylene falling under Chapter 39 as claimed by Revenue or as product of aluminium foil under Chapter Heading 7606.00. The Central Excise Tariff Heading 7606 deals with heading ‘aluminium plates, sheets (including circles) and strip of a thickness of exceeding 0.2 mm’ which has now been amended as 7607 which refers to “Aluminium foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paper board, plastics or similar backing materials) of a thickness (excluding any backing) exceeding 0.2 mm”.

2. Ld. Counsel submits that the tariff, during the relevant period was 7606, which is now in the present tariff described under 7607 as noted above. He contends that item has been printed by the advertising material and it is used for pasting on the bottles of the items or used as packing material by the industries with their brand name and details of the item. He contends that this issue was referred by the Larger Bench in the case of Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 1994(11)LCX0059 Eq 1995 (075) ELT 0313 (T) = 1995 (056) ECR 0245 (T) and the Larger Bench upheld the assessee’s contention that item after printing and packing will not be polyethylene for classification under Chapter 39 which was required to be classified under Chapter 76 and he submits that this judgment of Larger Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case. He contends that the product under consideration was therein of printing paper followed by coating of printed side with polyethylene and laminating of the other side with a combination of two of aluminium of foil sandwiched between two layers of polyethylene and backed with paper. He submits that this point was discussed in detail by the Larger Bench and in view of the manufacturing process and its materials use, they overruled the Revenue’s contention for classifying the item under 39 of plain polyethylene. He submits that this judgment squarely applies to this case.

3. Heard ld. DR, Shri S. Arumugam, who reiterates the contention and findings arrived by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.

4. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Larger Bench in the cited case i.e. Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. (supra) took up the very issue of classification of aluminium foil backed by paper and polyethylene and noted its various uses. After due consideration in the light of various other judgments, and tariff notes clearly upheld assessee’s contention that it is required to be classified under Chapter 76 of CET and overruled the Chapter Heading of 48 which was what Revenue had claimed in terms of Note (1) to Chapter 48.

5. The Tribunal has clearly upheld the classification under Chapter Heading of 76. In view of the Larger Bench judgment conclusively holding classification under Chapter 76, with no other contra judgment of higher courts has been cited before us, the issue stands settled. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Larger Bench, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. The cross-objection filed by Revenue is also disposed of with the above observations.

Equivalent 2001 (133) ELT 0805 (Tri. - Chennai)

Equivalent 2001 (046) RLT 0920