SHRINIWAS SYNTHETIC PACKERS PVT. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in these two appeals is whether the Aluminium foil/strips backed on both sides with plastics and stainless steel foils/strips backed with plastics on both sides are classifiable under Sub -heading 7607.00 and 7220.90 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Sub -heading 3920.30 of the tariff as classified by the Commissioner, under the impugned order.

(2.) SHRI L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that whenever electrical signals are transmitted through Jelly Filled Telecommunication cables (JFTC), electromagnetic filed is generated around the cable which causes interference in electrical signals being transmitted through other neighboring cables and distorts the signals; that JFTC cables are provided with metallic covering over the cable core to prevent distortion of electrical signals by surrounding electromagnetic fields; that Department of Telecom has specified that this screening material should be alumirium foil of 0.2 mm thickness backed on both sides with polyethylene; that plastic backing is used only to improve to bonding of the metallic screen with plastic jacket of JFTC cable and to seal the longitudinal edge of aluminium tapes; that plastic does not play any role in the basic function of avoiding distortion in electrical signals; that aluminium part dominates over plastic part in the composite plastic backed tape in terms of thickness, bulk, weight as well as value.

(3.) HE submitted that by application of Rule 1 of the General Interpretative Rules, the impugned goods are classifiable under heading 76.07 and 72.02 respectively; that even if Rule 3(b) is applied, the classification is justified since the essential character is given by the mental portion of the products and the use of plastic is only for bonding purposes. He, further, mentioned that the classifications have been approved by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara 1995 (75) ELT 313 (T). It has been held by the Tribunal by majority that aluminium foil backed by paper and polyethylene is classifiable under sub -hading 76.06; that the appeal filed against the decision was withdrawn by the Appellants as reported in 1998 (97) ELT A -139. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of India Foils Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta -II, 1998 (99) ELT 101 (T) wherein it has been held that aluminium foil pouch for containing tobacco is classifiable under Heading 76.12 as the essential characteristic is of aluminium content in the shape of aluminium foil and being backed by plastic does not take it away from the category of aluminium foil. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Calcutta -I v. India Foils Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 737 (T) wherein the Tribunal classified the aluminium foil backed on one side with printed polyester film and on the other with High Density Polythene (HDPE) Film under Sub -heading 7607.60 and not under Sub -heading .