UNITED METAL PRINTERS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. United Metal Printers manufactures metal boxes of different dimensions. These are classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1996 -2000 the appellant cleared part of their production under claim of exemption under Notification No. 8/96 dated 27.3.1996 and other subsequent notifications. The claim of the appellant was that the boxes in question were exempted under the following heading of the notification:

(2.) THE present appeal contends that the findings of the Commissioner are entirely erroneous. At the outset, the appellants point out that just as cash box manufacturers do not supply those boxes with cash or jewellery box manufacturers do not supply those boxes with jewellery or sweet box manufacturers do not sell the boxes with sweets, the geometry boxes or mathematical boxes manufacturers do not sell geometrical or mathematical boxes with geometry or mathematical instruments, though in some cases the mathematical/geometrical boxes may be sold alongwith the instruments also. The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the Central Excise Tariff classifications specifically recognizes this inasmuch as HSN Notes under Chapter Heading 90.17 for drawing instruments specifically states that "Drawing compasses, dividers, reduction compasses, spring bows, mathematical drawing pens, dotting wheels, etc., whether in a case (e.g. drawing sets) or separately. It is also the contention of the appellant that geometry/mathematical box makers and geometry/mathematical instrument makers are different industries and both the products are traded separate. It is also submitted that these boxes are clearly known in commerce and industry as Geometry/mathematical boxes. The appellant has pointed out that it supplied the boxes under dispute as geometrical boxes to major sellers of these goods, namely, Archis and Camlin. The appellant has further pointed out that the price -list of Camlin describes these goods specifically as "cases for geometry sets". Further, these boxes are ordered under specific code numbers which are for cases for geometry sets. These are also marketed under attractive names like "Trendy cars", "Terminator cases", etc. so as to attract children. It is the contention of the appellant that central excise classification of goods has to be in accord with the trade understanding.

(3.) A contention of the appellant is that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to show that the boxes in question were not known in the trade as geometrical /mathematical boxes or that they were being bought and sold under any other category. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the appellant/assessee filed evidence in support of the contention that these boxes are specifically manufactured and traded as geometry sets. He referred in this connection to affidavit dated 20th day of August 2002 of Shri Rajesh Chavan, Manager (Legal) of Camlin Ltd., Bombay. The learned Counsel pointed out that Shri Chavan had specifically stated that Camlin were engaged in the trading of geometry sets, that these cases were procured from several venders and that "these cases are sold in the market by us as empty cases which the students purchase and thereafter the students purchase the instruments which were put into these boxes." Shri Chavan has also stated that the boxes of dimensions 3.75" x 7.25" x.1" are suitable for filling the instruments. With regard to boxes with the dimensions 2.25" x 7.5" x 1" he has stated that these are also used as geometry boxes and that M/s. Ashoka Trading Corporation, Delhi manufactures mathematical instruments of such small size.