Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi

Collector Of Customs vs Paper Products Ltd. on 10 February, 1992

Equivalent citations: 2004(164)ELT268(TRI-DEL)

ORDER

S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President

1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-7-90.

2. The DR drew attention to the grounds of appeal mentioned in the Memo, of Appeal and the impugned order and stated that this matter relates to classification of printed plastic films.

3. The Asstt. Collector had classified them under 3920.29 and 3920.39 and the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the said order and allowed the appeal.

4. It was his submission that the main issue involved is whether printing would make any difference. It was their contention that the printing would amount to manufacture and duty is to be ...... such transformation irrespective of whether goods even then would fall under the same heading or different.

5. The learned Counsel drew attention to the Tariff Entry 39.20 and stated that they are printing plastic films falling under Heading 39.20 on job work basis. This heading reads :

"39.20 : Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, non-cellular, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials or not of polymers of vinyl chloride".

Chapter Note 10, under Chapter 39 reads as follows :

"In Heading Nos. 39.20 and 39.21, the expression plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, applies only to plates, sheets, film, foil and strip (other than those of Chapter 54) and to blocks of regular geometric shape, whether or not printed or otherwise surface-worked, uncut or cut into rectangles including square; but not further worked (even if when so cut, they become articles ready for use)".

In view of the clear stipulation under Chapter Note 10, the reasoning of the Asstt. Collector was not correct and the ld. Collector had rightly set aside the impugned order and he would also drew attention to the cases reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) and 1990 (45) E.L.T. 260 (sic).

6. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that Tariff Entry 39.20 includes film and Chapter Note 10 mentioned inter alia that under this heading the expression 'films' applies to films whether or not printed. As such printed film would also fall under Tariff Item 39.20 and the Collector is correct in pointing out that if duty is already paid once on such films, they will not be subject to any further duty after printing. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the departmental appeal as announced in Open Court.