1994(02)LCX0024

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH `C’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) and P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)

I.T.C. LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Final Order Nos. 76 and 77/94-C with Misc. Order No. 44/94-C, dated 28-2-1994 passed in Appeal Nos. E/1386 and 1224/88-C

Cases Quoted

Zupiter Printing v. UOI (Del.) — 1991 (034) ECR 7................................ [Paras 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14]

Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector — 1993(01)LCX0044 Eq 1993 (066) ELT 0055 (Mad.)..... [Paras 3, 4, 12, 13, 14]

Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. UOI — 1991(10)LCX0040 Eq 1992 (058) ELT 0418 (Mad.)................................. [Paras 3, 5, 13]

Bhor Industries v. Collector — 1989 (040) ELT 0080 (S.C.)............................... [Paras 3, 4, 5, 12, 14]

State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lal & Sons. — 1966 (17) STC 170.................................. [Paras 4, 9, 11]

Collector v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises — 1989 (043) ELT 214...................................... [Para 4]

UOI v. Bata India Ltd. — 1983 (043) ELT 0756 (Cal.)............................................... [Paras 4, 5, 15]

Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector — 1978 (002) ELT (J 350) (S.C.). [Para 10]

Advocated By : Shri Ravinder Narain, Sr. Advocate, Miss Amrita Mitra and Miss Punita Singh, Advocates, for the Assessee.

 Shri M. Chandrashekharan, Sr. Advocate, for the Department.

[Order per : P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)]. - These two appeals, involving the same issue, are disposed of by this common order.

2.M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. have come up in appeal against the order passed by Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay holding the `inner-slides’ for cigarette packets as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90. In the appeal filed by the Revenue the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding `slides’ for cigarette packets as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 has been challenged on the grounds that they are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13. Against the appeal filed by the Collector, M/s. ITC Ltd. have filed cross- objection. Briefly, the facts in these cases are that M/s. ITC Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes which are packed in packets comprising of an outer printed shell and inner printed slide made of paper board. The slides which are actually in the form of a printed paper board cut to shape and size are made by M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. out of duty paid paper board at their factories. In respect of their factory at Parel, Bombay, M/s. ITC Ltd. filed a classification list No. 1/86, dated 1-3-1986 in which they classified `printed slides’ under sub-heading 4818.19 of the Central Excise Tariff at `nil’ rate of duty. They were served with a show cause notice dated 3-4-1986 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay-I, requiring them to show cause why the said slides should not be classified under sub-heading 4818.90. In their reply dated 17-4-1986 to the show cause notice, M/s. ITC contended that slides were not excisable at all and, in any event, they could be classified only under sub-heading 4818.19 in terms of the classification list filed by them. However, by his order dated 22/26-5-1986 the Assistant Collector rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that printed slides in question were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, M/s. ITC Ltd. preferred an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) who by the impugned order dated 11-2-1988 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The facts in the case in which the Revenue has come up in appeal are identical since by the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector holding the printed slides for cigarette packets as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) has been challenged by the concerned Collector on the grounds that slides are classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13.

3. On behalf of M/s. ITC Ltd. Shri Ravinder Narain, the Learned Senior Advocate appeared before us. He submitted that from the various articles referred in Heading 48.18 it is evident that it covers only complete articles and any product to be classified under sub-heading 4818.90 must necessarily be a complete article so as to fall under Heading 48.18. He added that printed slides which are not complete articles by themselves cannot be considered as falling under Heading 48.18. He further submitted that a cigarette packet consists of a printed shell and a printed slide and whereas a packet would be article within the meaning of Heading 48.18, its component part, namely, printed slide would not be treatable as an article falling under Heading 48.18. He contended that Heading 48.18 makes no reference to parts, or components which must be taken to be specifically excluded from the scope of Heading 48.18. He stated that whenever the Legislature intended to include both articles and parts/components thereof in any Heading of the Tariff, it had done so by specifically including parts under that item. In support of his contention, he referred to Headings 66.01, 84.31, 92.09 of the Tariff and pointed out that each of these Headings had been worded so as to cover parts as well. He argued that on these considerations printed slides which are component parts, would have to be deemed as excluded from the scope of sub-heading 4818.90. He submitted that apart from the residuary sub-heading 4818.90, Heading 48.18 consists of three other sub-headings of which sub-heading 4818.20 covering tissue papers etc. has no application and sub-headings 4818.12 and 4818.13 also cannot have any application in so far as slides are concerned since they cover only complete printed cartons, boxes, containers and cases. He contended that for these reasons even if one goes by the reasoning adopted by the Department in their appeal that slides and shells are used as containers to protect cigarettes, slides which are only component parts of cigarette packets would be classifiable only under sub-heading 4818.19. The Learned Counsel referred to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India reported in 1991 (034) ECR 7 and read out the observations of the High Court that even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that “outer shell” is a packet, still it would not be called a box since a packet consists of both the components, the shell and the slide and in the absence of the slide, by no stretch of imagination it would be called a box. He also referred to the observations of the High Court in para 18 of the judgment that to become “goods” an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold but at the shell stage it can neither be bought nor sold. Shri Ravinder Narain stated that based on their judgment in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court had allowed C.W. No. 2925/82 filed by the appellants challenging the assessment of both shells as well as slides under Entry No. 17(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. In support of his case, the Learned Counsel also cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (066) ELT 55 wherein relying upon the earlier judgment of the Madras High Court reported in 1992 (058) ELT 418 in the case of Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India, it has been held that cigarette packets and or outer shells and inner shells would not be liable to duty under sub-heading 4818.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as it would amount to double taxation. Shri Ravinder Narain referred to the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zupiter Printing & Another v. Union of India which has held that `shells’ for cigarette packets are not “goods” which can ordinarily come to the market for being bought and sold and contended that on the same considerations `slides’ would have to be treated as non-excisable on account of being not marketable. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (040) ELT 280.

4. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, the Learned Senior Advocate appeared before us. Making his submissions in the case in which M/s. ITC had come up in appeal, he referred to para 2 of the Appeal and submitted that according to the appellants’, own version the disputed printed slides are printed boards cut to particular shape and size and they form component parts of cigarette packets. He stated that the `article’ is a generic term which has a wide scope and would cover any product including parts and components. He stated that there was no force at all in the appellants’ contention that Heading 48.18 would cover only complete items and not parts since it did not specifically refer to parts as was the case with certain other Headings of the Tariff. In this regard he submitted that the terminology used in different Headings of the Tariff depends on the nature of the goods covered in each case. He reiterated his stand that the scope of the term “article” in Heading 48.18 was wide enough to cover different products including parts and components. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lal & Sons reported in 1966 (17) STC 170, in which it has been held that the expression “stainless steel articles” is sufficiently wide enough to include utensils manufactured out of stainless steel. He stated that in the judgment the High Court had also observed that according to Webster and the Shorter Oxford Dictionaries an “article” means a particular commodity, a thing for sale and it also means a part or a portion and an “article” also means a component part, a distinct part or a portion. Shri Chandrasekharan stated that the slides which according to the appellants’, own version are “parts” of packets made by cutting printed paper board to shape and size, have to be treated as “articles” of paper-board classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90. Referring to Shri Ravinder Narain’s contention that the slides are not excisable since on the ratio of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing they are not “goods” known to the market and burden of proving the marketability of the slides in question had not been discharged by the Department, the Learned Counsel submitted that in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise the excisability of crude PVC films which even according to the Additional Collector were not marketable came up for consideration. He added that in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises reported in 1989 (043) ELT 214, the Supreme Court had laid down that user in captive consumption is not determinative of that article as capable of being sold in the market or known in the market as goods, and even transient articles can be goods provided they were known in the market as distinct and separate articles having separate uses. He stated that as far as the disputed goods are concerned there is ample evidence that they are definite identifiable products which are known in the market as “slides” and find extensive use in the cigarette industry. He contended that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India (supra) is not relevant to question whether slides for cigarette packets could be deemed as “Other articles of Paper Board” falling under sub-heading 4818.90 since in that case the issue that came up for consideration before the High Court was whether outer shells for cigarette packets could be treated as boxes or containers assessable under Item 17(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. He added that in the appellants, own case in C.W. 2925/82 outer shells for cigarette packets were held as not excisable under Tariff Item 17(4). Shri Chandrasekharan further submitted that for the same reasons the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tabacco Company Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise is not relevant since in that case while examining the question whether cigarette packets and or outer shells and inner slides were excisable under sub-heading 4818.13, the High Court had held that cigarette packets cannot be subjected to duty twice over. The Learned Counsel reiterated his stand that slides in question being admittedly items made by cutting printed paper board to size and shape for being used as a part of cigarette packets have to be deemed as `articles of paper’ falling under sub-heading 4818.90. He submitted that once it is held that the goods in question fall under a particular Tariff Heading, they will be liable to tax unless they are in the nature of unfinished goods like crude PVC films which came up for consideration in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. He contended that the disputed goods being finished identifiable goods for which the appellants have been filing classification lists have to be deemed as marketable and excisable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. reported in 1993 (068) ELT 756.

Making his submissions in the case in which the Revenue has filed the appeal, Shri Chandrasekharan stated that the Department’s stand is that in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Tariff Schedule, `slides’ would be classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 on account of having acquired the essential characteristics of the goods covered by that sub-headinng.

5. Replying to the points made on behalf of the Revenue, Shri Ravinder Narain stated that on the ratio of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India (supra) and also the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Asia Tobacco reported in 1992 (058) ELT 418, classification of `slides’ under sub-heading 4818.13 was ruled out since a slide cannot be deemed as a carton, container and box. He contended that at best a slide could be considered as a container falling under sub-heading 4818.19. He submitted that Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Tariff Schedule, which was referred to by the Learned Counsel is not relevant since `slide’ is only a part whereas sub-heading 4818.13 covers complete items, namely, printed cartons, boxes and cases. He stated that according to the scheme of the Tariff, parts wherever intended to be taxed had been specifically mentioned or included in the particular headings. He argued that even though in wider sense “article” would include parts but having regard to the scheme of the Tariff Heading 48.18 which does not specifically refer to parts it has to be deemed as covering only complete “articles”. Referring to the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. cited by the Learned Counsel on behalf of the Revenue, Shri Ravinder Narain stated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise the burden to prove that the slides in question are “goods” known to the market and are capable of being marketed was squarely on the Department, which they had failed to discharge.

6. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the only question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the inner slides for cigarette packets which are made by cutting printed paper/paper board to specific shape and size would be classifiable either under sub-heading 4818.13 or under sub-heading 4818.90 as contended by the Revenue or as contended on behalf of M/s. ITC Ltd. they will either not be excisable and if at all held as excisable they will fall under sub-heading 4818.19.

7. For the proper appreciation of the rival contentions we reproduce below the Heading 48.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as it read during the relevant period :-

8. It is seen that the description of goods against sub-headings 4818.13 and 4818.19 is preceded by “—”. Hence the group of articles covered by these sub-headings have to be treated as sub-classification of the immediately preceding articles or group of articles that are preceded by a “-”. It follows that the disputed slides for cigarettes would be classifiable either under sub-headings 4818.13 or 4818.19 only if they can be deemed as any of the items specified against the first sub-heading of Heading 48.18 i.e. cartons, boxes, containers or cases. It is seen that the question whether the “outer-shell” of a cigarette packet could be considered as a box or container came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing and Another v. Union of India (supra). The High Court observed that it is only when the slide is inserted inside the shell that it can be called a `box’ or `container’ but without slide it is neither. In this connection the High Court also observed that in commercial and in cigarette trade, the container in which cigarettes are packed is known as a packet of cigarette and not a box or carton. Paras 12, 14, 15 and 17 being relevant are reproduced below :

* * * * * * *

9. On a plain reading of the extracts from the High Court of Delhi judgment reproduced above, it follows that a “shell” of a cigarette packet is neither a carton nor a box and it cannot also be deemed as a container of any sort. On the same considerations it has to be held that `slide’ which when inserted into a “shell” forms a cigarette packet, cannot by itself be a box or container and it can also not be a carton. For these reasons, we hold that classification of “slides” either under sub-heading 4818.13 or under 4818.19 is ruled out. The case of the Revenue is that “slide” being admittedly a part of a cigarette packet made by cutting printed cardboard to size and shape has to be deemed as an “Article of Paper/Paper Board” falling under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90 - “Other”. In this regard relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshav Lal and Sons (supra), Shri Chandrasekharan has contended that `Article’ is a generic term which is wide enough to include even parts of complete items. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for M/s. ITC Ltd. has vehemently argued that in absence of any reference to parts in Heading 48.18, it has to be deemed as covering only complete articles. He has contended that whereas a complete cigarette packet consisting of both shell and slide can be deemed as an `article’ within the meaning of Heading 48.18, its component part namely, printed slide, would not be treatable as an `article’ falling under the said heading. In this regard he has also contended that the scheme of the Central Excise Tariff is such that component parts of products which are intended to be taxed have been included by the Legislature in the relevant headings of the Tariff by making a specific reference to parts. In support of this argument Shri Ravinder Narain has referred to sub-headings 66.01, 84.31 and 92.04 in which along with the goods, their parts have also been included by making a specific mention.

10. It is seen that Rule 1 of the Rules For the Interpretation of the Schedule provides that classification of any goods under the Schedule has to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector, reported in 1978 (002) ELT (J 350), in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. Hence, the question whether the disputed `slide’ which admittedly is a part of a cigarette packet can also be deemed as an “Article of paper/paper board” falling under sub-heading 4818.90 will have to be decided having regard to the wordings of the relevant heading and sub-headings and not on the basis of the scheme of the Tariff or any supposed intention of the legislature. We, therefore, do not find any force in the argument of Shri Ravinder Narain that in the absence of any mention of parts in the Heading 48.18 or any of its sub-headings, the possibility of classification of `slides’ for cigarette packets under any of the sub-heading of Heading 48.18 has to be ruled out.

11. It has been contended by Shri Chandrasekharan that the disputed `slide’ which is made by cutting printed paper/paper board to size and shape is not only a part of a cigarette packet, but it is also an “Article of paper/paper board”. In support of his contention he has referred to the dictionary meaning of `Article’ and has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Keshavlal & Sons (supra) wherein it has been held that an `Article’ also means a component part, a distinct part or portion. The following extract from the said judgment being relevant is reproduced below :-

“According to Webster’s and the Shorter Oxford Dictionaries, an ”article" means a particular commodity, a thing for sale and it also means a distinct part. An “article” also means a component part, a distinct part or a portion. Mr. Nanavati for the assessee sought to construe the word “articles” in entry 20 as meaning only a component part or a portion of a whole and argued that the word “articles” must take colour from the subsequent words used in that entry, namely, “other than those used as parts of industrial machinery or plant”. He contended that reading the entry as a whole the word “articles” used therein should be construed as a distinct part or a portion of a whole article and not an article which is whole in itself and therefore utensils made of stainless steel would not be covered by entry 20. In our view, it is not possible to accept such a construction. There is nothing in that entry to indicate that the Legislature intended to give to the word “articles” the meaning which Mr. Nanavati seeks to attach to it, and equally there is no indication in that entry to show that an article does not mean what its ordinary and dictionary meaning is, namely, a particular commodity or a thing for sale. It may be that the word “article” may include not only a particular commodity but also a component part. But that would not mean the same thing which Mr. Nanavati contends for, namely, that the article that is spoken of in entry 20 must necessarily mean a component part and not a whole commodity or a whole thing."

In view of the above discussion and having regard to the fact that the `slide’ in question is produced by cutting paper/paper board to size and shape and admittedly it constitutes a part of a cigarette packet, we are inclined to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Revenue that it has to be deemed as an “Article of paper/paper board” covered by Heading 48.18 and will correctly be classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 4818.90.

12. Shri Ravinder Narain has contended that even if the `slide’ in question is held as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 it will not be excisable in view of the finding of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India that “outer shell” of a cigarette packet cannot be deemed as “goods” which can ordinarily come to the market to be sold and bought, is equally applicable to `slides’. He has argued that the Department had failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to prove the marketability of the `slides’ in question. In this regard he has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries v. Collector of Central Excise. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) in which it has been held that a cigarette packet cannot be subjected to duty twice over and even otherwise, the outer shell and inner slide cannot be subjected to any separate assessment. He has further submitted that the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. cannot be of any assistance to the Revenue since the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries was not cited before the High Court.

13. We find that in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India, the question that was examined by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was whether `outer shell’ for a cigarette packet could be deemed as boxes or containers which were excisable under Tariff Item No. 17(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. It was held that a packet consists of both components, the shell and the slide, and in the absence of the slide by no stretch of imagination it could be called a box. The High Court also held that to become `goods’ an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market and be bought and sold but at the shell stage, it can neither be bought nor sold in the market. In the case of Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (058) ELT 418 as well, the question that was examined by the Hon’ble Madras High Court was whether cigarette packets were covered under Tariff Item 17(4) of the First Schedule and exempted from duty in terms of Notification No. 66/82. The High Court held that cigarette packet being only a container and not a printed carton or a printed box, was eligible for exemption under Notification 66/82. The High Court also considered the process of packing of cigarettes and observed that it is not only the packet which is assembled but a packet of cigarettes containing cigarettes therein and, therefore, a cigarette packet cannot be subjected to duty twice over. In the second case of Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. reported in 1993 (066) ELT 55, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that cigarette packets and outer shell and inner slides are not excisable under sub-heading 4818.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The High Court also reiterated the earlier finding that cigarette packet cannot be subjected to duty twice over and even otherwise, the outer shells and inner slides cannot be subjected to any separate assessment. Shri Ravinder Narain has contended that on the ratio of the findings in these judgments, `slides’ cannot be deemed as `goods’ which can ordinarily come to the market to be sold and bought.

14. In the judgment cited by the Learned Counsel on behalf of M/s. ITC the question of dutiability of `slides’/`cigarette packets’ under sub-heading 4819.90 was not an issue for decision before the Hon’ble High Courts. In view of our findings that `slides’ for cigarette packets are “Articles of paper/paper board” classifiable under sub-heading 4819.90, the judgments in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India and Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, on which the Learned Counsel for M/s. I.T.C. has placed reliance are distinguishable and for this reason, we are not inclined to agree with Shri Ravinder Narain that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India that “shells” can neither be bought nor sold in the market and by implication the “slides” will also have to be deemed as not marketable. It is seen that in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) while considering the question whether crude PVC films could be deemed as excisable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed “Therefore, it is necessary, in a case like this, to find out whether there are goods, that is to say, articles as known in the market as separate distinct identifiable commodities and whether the tariff duty levied would be as specified in the Schedule. Simply because a certain article falls within the Schedule it would not be dutiable under excise law if the said article is not ”goods" known to the market. Marketability, therefore, is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable under the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985".

15. It is also seen that in the case of Union of India v. Bata India Ltd. reported in 1993 (068) ELT 756 wherein the levy of duty on certain types of processed cotton and silk fabrics was disputed on the grounds that the goods in question were meant only for the internal use of the assessee and could not be deemed as marketable on account of the special solutions and materials used for the coating of the fabrics being a trade secret of the assessee, the High Court observed that if the sheets in question were essential components of shoes, the other manufacturers of shoes, specially the small manufacturers who cannot afford to have large plant exclusively engaged in the production of the sheets in question would be induced to buy such sheets and therefore the sheets would definitely be vendible. The High Court also observed that if the goods are specified in the Schedule of the Act, the presumption shall be that they are excisable but they shall cease to be excisable if they have no market. The fact that the assessee had taken out a licence and got it renewed was held by the High Court as a circumstance which prima facie amounted to leviability.

16. We therefore find sufficient force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revenue that the marketability of each product has to be considered separately, having regard to the tests laid down in various judgments of the Apex Court. As far as the disputed `slides’ are concerned, they have a specific name and they are admittedly parts of cigarette packets which find extensive use in Cigarette Industry and, in fact, M/s. I.T.C. had been filing classification lists for the `slides’ manufactured in their factory. It is also seen from the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India, on which the Learned Counsel for M/s. I.T.C. has placed reliance that it is a common practice for the manufacturers of cigarettes to acquire cigarette packets and parts thereof from parties who are engaged mainly in the manufacture of cigarette packets and their parts. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for M/s. I.T.C. that the `slides’ for cigarette packets are not marketable and would therefore not be liable to duty under sub-heading 4818.90.

17. In view of the above discussion, we hold that `slides’ for cigarette packets are excisable under sub-heading 4818.90. The impugned order holding `slides’ as classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 is confirmed and the appeal filed by M/s. I.T.C. is rejected. For the same reasons, the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise seeking the classification of `slides’ under sub-heading 4818.13 is also rejected. The Cross Objection filed by M/s. I.T.C. is also disposed of in these terms.

Equivalent 1994 (071) ELT 0478 (Tribunal)