Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - DelhiCollector Of Central Excise vs Fibre Foils (P) Ltd. on 27 February, 1996Equivalent citations: 1996(83)ELT519(TRI-DEL)ORDER
 

 Gowri Shankar, Member (T)1. The question for decision in these appeals is the classification of 'composite containers with printed labels pasted on outer surface of the containers'.2.   The assessee had claimed classification of these goods under Heading 1418.191 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the goods should be classifiable under Heading 4818.13. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) upheld the assessee's contention and has ordered classification of the goods under Heading 4818.19. Hence these appeals.3.   The Departmental Representative adopts the reasoning in the appeals. This is that since the goods under consideration are not fully made of paper but contain metal inserts, their classification under 4818.12 is excluded, that heading being only for cartons, boxes etc. made wholly out of paper of paperboard. The containers have labels printed on the outer surface. They are therefore classifiable under 4818.13 as other printed cartons, boxes and cases. Heading 4818.19 is excluded because it is a residuary item not covering printed cartons, boxes etc.4.   Shri R. Nambirajan for the respondent contends that the Collector has passed a reasoned order just to find the classification under sub-heading  4818.19. He cites various decisions in his favour.5. In his order, the Collector had noted that sub-heading 4818.12 included "printed cartons, boxes, containers and cases" made wholly out of paper of paperboard of various specified sub-headings. Since the goods contained metal inserts, he ruled out classification under this heading. He noted that Heading 4818.13 was for "other cartons, boxes and cases". In view of the presence of the word "containers" in sub-heading .12 but excluded in subheading .13. He concluded that containers other than cartons, boxes and cases would not be classifiable under this sub-heading and would fall under the residuary Heading 4818.19. He specifically mentions that no evidence has been cited in the order of the Assistant Collector to say that the composite containers manufactured by the assessee were in the nature of "other printed cartons boxes and cases". This reasoning is supported by the decision of the judgment of Madras High Court inAsia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India1992 (58) E.L.T. 418 and of the Delhi High Court inZupiter Printery and Anr. v. Union of India1991 (34) E.C.R. 7 in which it has been held that outer shell for packing of cigarettes are not boxes or cartons.The decision of this Tribunal inI.T.C. Ltd. v. CCE1994 (71) E.L.T. 478 also provide support for the Collector (Appeals) contention that there might be containers which are not cartons, boxes or cases.6. The Department's appeal does not cite any evidence to say that the goods are in the nature of cartons, boxes, or cases and therefore, classifiable under Heading 4818.13. Unless the goods can be considered to be fall within any of these three categories they would not be classifiable under sub-heading 4818.13 even if they are printed. We, therefore, decline to interfere.7.   The appeals are dismissed.