Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
G. Sankaran, V.T. Raghavachari, JJ.
Kwality Containers (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Respondent
Order No. 233/1987-D, 233 of 1987
Decided On : 26-03-1987
V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. According to the appellants M/s. Kwality Containers (P) Ltd. they manufacture pilfer proof caps falling under T.I. 12 CET as also aluminium tear-off vial seals and aluminium tear-down vial seals, falling under T.I.-68 CET. In respect of the pilfer proof caps they were claiming exemption under notification 83/83 and in respect of the other aluminium vial seals they were claiming exemption under notification 77/83. In respect of these aluminium vial seals the department had a doubt on the classifiability under TI 68 but, subsequently, the Assistant Collector under order dated 8-10-1980 settled their classification under TI 68 CET.
2. After a visit to their factory on 21-1-1985 during the course of which 3,31,000 pieces of tear-off and tear-down vial seals were seized under the belief that they are classifiable under TI 42 CET and not under TI 68 CET, action was initiated by issue of notice dated 6-6-1985. It was alleged that as these seals had been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty under TI 42 CET the appellants had contravened various rules and had made themselves liable for penalty, confiscation and demand of duty. After the appellants had sent their reply an adjudication was held by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay-II (Now Bombay-Ill on reorganisation) in which he held that the vial seals were classifiable as pilfer proof caps under TI 42 CET and the charges against the appellants were therefore made out. But he restricted the demand to the normal period under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is against the said order of the Collector dated 24-12-1985 that the present appeal has been preferred.
3. We have Heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.V. Naik, JCDR for the department.
4. Samples drawn of the products in question as manufactured by the appellants as also by another manufacturer were also produced for our perusal during the course of our hearing.
5. The contentions of the appellants stated in short are that :-
(i) The aluminium vial seals in question are not caps at all but only seals and therefore there is no question of these products being pilfer proof caps;
(ii) These seals are not known as pilfer proof caps in the trade;
(iii) Reliance of the Collector on two earlier decisions of this Tribunal is misplaced since in one of them the party was not represented and the other did not deal with a product similar to the product in question;
(iv) the classification of the product having been approved by the Assistant Collector the same cannot in law be disturbed by the Collector except by way of proceeding in review;
(v) the Collector had no jurisdiction to confirm the demand under Section 11-A of the Act as it then stood;
(vi) the confiscation of the goods was in any event not called for; and
(vii) the demand as confirmed was in any event in excess of the period prescribed in Section 11-A of the Act.
6. As mentioned earlier there is no dispute regarding the classifiability under TI 42 CET of the screw down caps manufactured by the appellants which they themselves have classified under TI 42 as pilfer proof caps. The dispute relates to tear-off and tear-down aluminium Seals manufactured by them. The tear-off seals are to be used in injection glass vials, the tear-down seals being used in other glass or plastic bottles meant to contain tablets, powder, capsules etc. Shri Lakshmikumaran contended that the function to be performed in case of tear-down seals are (i) to hold the plastic cap in position; (ii) to provide decorative packaging and (iii) to prevent accidental spilling of the contents or cap during handling. In respect of the tear-off seals he claimed that the functions were (i) to hold the rubber plug in position; (ii) to prevent spillage of the contents during handling and (iii) to prevent contamination of the plug or the contents. Therefore in effect he stated that while these tear-off and tear-down seals may contribute
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
