1. Cigarette packaging articles — Classification dispute — Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J., V. N. Khare, JJ.
I.T.C. LIMITED, APPELLANT
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeals Nos. 11530, 11537, 11540 of 1995,
decided on December 11, 1997.
Articles used for packaging where printing is merely incidental to the primary use are classifiable under the chapter governing their primary use (Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) rather than under headings for printed matter.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter 48, Note 8 and Sub Heading 4901.90 - Classification of articles - Articles used for packaging cigarettes with printing - Printing being merely incidental to the primary use of packaging - Articles correctly classifiable under Chapter 48 - Classification under Sub Heading 4901.90 ruled out. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the classification of certain articles used for the packaging of cigarettes. It was contended that the printing on these items was not merely incidental to their primary use, and therefore, they should be classified under Sub Heading 4901.90 rather than Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conclusion of the Tribunal that the primary use of the articles in question is for the packaging of cigarettes and the printing on them is merely incidental to that primary use.
Issues: Whether articles used for packaging cigarettes with printing should be classified under Chapter 48 or Sub Heading 4901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: When the primary use of an article is for packaging and the printing on it is merely incidental to that primary use, the article is correctly classifiable under the chapter pertaining to its primary use (Chapter 48) and cannot be classified under headings reserved for printed matter.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
excise duty
- classification of goods (Para 1)
-
excise duty
Table of Contents
2. Classification under Chapter 48 versus Sub Heading 4901.90 — Whether printing is merely incidental to primary use. (Para 1 )
3. Primary use of articles is packaging — Printing is merely incidental to that primary use. (Para 1 )
4. Articles used primarily for packaging with incidental printing are classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. When are printed articles classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?
Printed articles are classifiable under Chapter 48 if their primary use is packaging and the printing is merely incidental to that primary use. (Para 1 )
7. Does the presence of printing on packaging articles necessarily rule out classification under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?
No, classification under Chapter 48 is not ruled out if the printing is found to be merely incidental to the primary use of the articles. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and the learned Additional Solicitor General. We are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and its reasons for that conclusion are correct. The conclusion of the Tribunal is stated thus :
"In view of the above discussion we find no force in the appellants contention that the classification of the disputed articles under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would be ruled out in terms of Note 8 to Chapter 48 on account of printing on the said items being not merely incidental to their primary use. We hold that on account of the primary use of the articles in question being in connection with the packaging of cigarettes and the printing there being merely incidental to their primary use that would be correctly classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and their classification under Sub Heading 4901.90 as claimed by the applicants would be ruled out."
2. Accordingly there is no merit in these appeals and are dismissed.
