CHAMPION PACKAGING INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) Shri Ramesh Ananthan learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants are manufacturing aluminium foil laminated on both sides with plastic films. Show cause notice was issued to them asking them to show cause as to why the goods i.e. polyester laminated with aluminium and further laminated with plythene in roll form should not be classified under sub -heading 3920.30 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act and the said goods in pouch form under 3923.90 and accordingly differential duty was demanded from them. The case was adjudicated by the AC who confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,88,592 and classified the aluminium foils laminated on both sides with plastic under sub -heading 3920.39 during February 99 and under sub -heading 3923.90 from March 99 onwards. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner but on quantification of duty he directed the appellant to submit a detailed statement to show the duty liability to lower authority who should verify the correctness and then confirm the duty liability. In appeal it was pleaded that the appellants are manufacturing aluminium foil laminated with plastics as per requirement of the customer. They were all along classifying the goods under sub -heading 7607.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and paying duty accordingly. He pleaded that their case is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal in case of Paharpur 3 P v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, 2004 (167) ELT 515 wherein it was held that aluminium foil laminated on both sides with plastic films is classifiable under 76.07 of Central Excise Tariff Act. He also relied on Board Circular No. 753/69/2003 -C.Ex dated 6.10.03 where it was held that aluminium foil laminated on both sides with plastic film, would be classifiable under sub -heading 7607 instead of sub -heading 3920. He pleaded that the lower authorities have not considered the pleadings of the appellants and have wrongly classified the goods.

(3.) Shri P.M. Saleem learned SDR appearing for revenue referred to Section Note 1 (C) of Section VII and Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 71 and stated that on the basis of these Sections and Chapter Notes, the goods would be classified according to the pre -dominance of the material contained in the goods and therefore, the lower authorities have correctly classified the product under chapter 39. He also relied upon the following decisions.