Per: Gowri Shankar, Member: The issue for decision in these appeals is the classification of inner frames for cigarette packets manufactured by the appellant company. The department has classified these goods under sub heading 7116.90 of the Central Excise tariff, whereas the appellant claims that these are classifiable under heading 7607.30 of the tariff read with notification 180/88.

2. Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate for the appellant, explained that the inner frames were manufactured out of aluminium foil which is backed with paperboard. This material is received in the form of rolls. Out of these the inner frame is cut to the required size and shape. Thereafter it is perforated on both sides at the required distance from the edge, so that it can be folded at the perforation. Shri Ravinder Narain demonstrated with the assistance of samples how the inner frame is pasted to the inner side of the cigarette packet so as to provide support for the hinged lid and also helps to keep the cigarettes in place. The advocate stated that the goods are therefore nothing more than aluminium foil backed with board which is perforated and cut to shape. Therefore they were classifiable at the relevant time (1990-91) under sub heading 76.30 of the tariff. He took us through the 76.00 heading and its sub heading in support of his argument that an aluminium foil not exceeding 0.2 mm thickness cannot discharge duty more than once. This is why there was a separate sub heading for foil subjected to a specific process e.g. plain, embossed, coated, printed, backed. This was consistent with the wording of the main heading. He said that heading 7616.90 covered other articles of aluminium. This was therefore a residuary entry and would only be attracted after all other headings in the Chapter were excluded. Further, this heading specified in sub heading 10 specific articles and, on the principle of ejusdem generis this particular commodity would not fall for classification in that heading. He said that in terms of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Zupiter Printers and Others Vs. Union of India 1991 (34) ECR 7 the goods would not be excisable at al I since they were not brought or sold in the market. He, however, emphasized that this was an alternative plea and specifically requested a decision on his main plea. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Hindustan Packaging Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (75) ELT313, in which aluminium foil not exceeding 0.15 mm in thickness was classified under heading 7606.00 of the Central Excise tariff.

3. Shri Mohan Lal the Departmental Representative, stated that the goods in question were something more than a simple foil backed with board. The colour of the product was gold. Since aluminium was silvery white metal, the goods had evidently been subjected, in addition to being backed with board to some process. Further the goods were not perforated. He argued that the Dictionary meaning of the word 'perforate' is to make a series of small holes. The goods had not been subjected to this process as would be evident by inspecting them. He relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in I.T.C. case 1994 (71) ELT 478 in which slits for cigarette packets are classified under sub heading 4818.90.

4. Heading 7607 and its sub heading of the Central Excise tariff 1991, during the relevant period reads as follows:

Aluminium foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paperboard, plastics or similar backing materials) of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.2 mm.

It is clear that the main heading covers aluminium foil of a thickness, excluding backing, not exceeding 0.2 mm whether or not printed or backed with paperboard or similar material. The competing entry, in heading 76.16, "Other articles of aluminium" is the last entry in the Chapter and, from its word