Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 12043-54 of 1995
PETITIONER:
Collector, Central Excise, Madras etc.
RESPONDENT:
M/s I.T.C. Limited, Bihar etc.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2003
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH & ARUN KUMAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Shah, J.
Question requiring determination in these appeals is whether
’cigarette packets’ would be ’other packing containers’ or ’boxes’
within the meaning of Tariff Item No.17 of Central Excise Tariff Act
(hereinafter referred to as ’the Act)? It is the contention of the
Department that cigarette packet is a ’small paper box’ and cannot be
termed as a ’container’ which is relatively a large enclosure. On
behalf of the respondent ITC Limited, which manufactures
cigarettes, it is submitted that cigarette packet would be ’other
packing container’ and not ’paper box’.
The aforesaid question is required to be decided by considering
the relevant part of Tariff Item No.17 and Exemption Notification
No.66/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982. Tariff Item No.17 reads as under:
Item No.17PAPER AND PAPER BOARD AND ARTICLES THEREOF
Item No. Tariff Description Rate of Duty
17. Paper and Paper Board, all sorts
(including paste-board, millboard,
strawboard, cardboard and
corrugated board), and articles
thereof specified below, in or in
relation to the manufacture of
which any process is ordinarily
carried on with the aid of power
(1), (2), (3) .
(4) Boxes, cartons, bags and Thirty-two and
other packing containers a half per cent
(including flattened or folded ad valorem.
boxes and flattened or folded
cartons), whether or not
printed and whether in
assembled or unassembled
condition.
The Exemption Notification dated 28.2.1982 reads thus:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
(1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the
Central Government hereby exempts articles of paper or
paper board, falling under sub-item (4) of Item No.17 of
the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 (1 of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise
leviable thereon:
Provided that no such exemption shall apply to
printed boxes and printed cartons (including flattened or
folded printed boxes and flattened or folded printed
cartons) whether in assembled or unassembled
condition."
The aforesaid tariff item provides for levying excise duty on
"boxes, cartons, bags and other packing containers". There is
exemption notification granting exemption from whole of the duty of
excise leviable thereon. However, no such exemption was provided to
printed boxes and printed cartons. In the present case, cigarette
packets are printed ones. It is the contention of the Department that
cigarette packets are printed boxes. Contra, it is contention of the
manufacturer that cigarette packets are "other packing containers".
For deciding the controversy, first we have to find out what is
sought to be conveyed by ’boxes, cartons, bags’ and ’other packing
containers’. Bare reading of the said tariff item would mean ’other
packing container’ is a residuary term in context of ’box, carton or
bag’. If the container is a box, carton or a bag then it would not be
other packing container. The word ’container’ is used in a broad
sense. Because in one sense, boxes, cartons or bags are also
containers. This would be clear from dictionary meanings of the said
words which are as under:
(Abstract from Collins Dictionary of the English
Language)
Bag 1. A flexible container with an opening at one end.
2. Also called: bagful, the contents of or amount
contained in such a container.
3. Any of various measures of quantity, such as a bag
containing 1 hundred weight of coal
Box 1. A receptacle or container made of wood, cardboard
etc., usually rectangular and having a removable or
hinged lid.
2. Also called: boxful. The contents of such a
receptacle or the amount it can contain:
(Abstract from the New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary)
Box. 1. A case or receptacle, usu. Rectangular or
cylindrical and with a lid, of wood, metal, card,
etc.
(Abstract from Collins Dictionary of the English
Language)
Packet 1. A small or medium-sized container of cardboard
paper, etc., often together with its contents,
2. a packet of biscuits
3. a small package; parcel
Carton 1. A cardboard box for containing goods;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
2. a container of waxed paper or plastic in which
liquids, such as milk, are sold
Container 1. An object used for or capable of holding, esp. for
transport or storage, such as a carton, box etc.
2. a large cargo-carrying standard-sized container
that can be loaded from one mode of a transport to
another
3. a container port;
4. a container ship."
Further, meaning of the word ’container’ used in Tariff Item 17
was considered by this Court in G. Claridge & Company Ltd. v.
Collector of Central Excise [1991 (52) ELT 341]. In that case,
question was whether egg trays and other similar products
manufactured by the appellant can be regarded as ’containers’ under
the relevant entries in the Central Excise Tariff. The Court considered
the expression ’containers’ defined in the dictionaries and glossaries
of Packaging Terms:
"Container : One that contains; a receptacle or
flexible covering for shipment of goods."
(Abstract from Webster’s new Collegiate Dictionary,
1975)
"Container: (i) that which contains (ii) that in
which goods are enclosed for transport."
(Abstract from Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary)
"Container Any receptacle which holds, restrains
or encloses any article or commodity or articles or
commodities to be stored or transported."
(Abstract from Indian Standard Glossary of Terms: I.S.
4261 -- 1967)
"Container. (1) In general, any receptacle or
enclosure used in packaging and shipping. (2)
Relatively large, reusable enclosures to be filled with
smaller packages and discrete objects, to consolidate
shipments and allow transport on railway flat cars,
flatbed trailers, aircraft, in ships’ holds or as deckloads,
etc. (See CARGO TRANSPORTER : CONTAINERIZATION). (3)
Any receptacle for holding a product."
(Abstract from Glossary of Packaging Terms (USA)]
"Container: A large box for intermodal transport,
containing many smaller boxes of different shapes and
sizes as well as individual articles."
(Abstract from Glossary of Packaging Terms (Australia)]
Thereafter, the Court held thus:
"9. The above definitions would show that the
expression ’container’ is used in three different sense:
in a broad sense, it means a receptacle which contains;
in a narrower sense, it means a receptacle in which
articles are covered or enclosed and transported; and in
a more limited sense, it means enclosures used in
shipping or railway for transport of goods. If used in a
broad sense, ’container’ would include a tray because it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
is a receptacle which contains articles and, therefore, an
egg tray would be a ’container’. But an egg tray would
not be a ’container’ in a narrower sense because articles
placed in it are not covered or enclosed and they cannot
be transported as such. It is, therefore, necessary to
ascertain whether the expression ’container’ in Item 17 of
the old Tariff and Heading 48.18 of the new Tariff has
been used in the broad sense to include all receptacles or
in a narrower sense to mean those receptacles in which
the articles are covered or enclosed and transported. For
this purpose, the context in which the word ’container’
has been used in these entries has to be examined. In
Item 17 of the old tariff, the word ’containers’ is
preceded by the words ’boxes, cartons, bags and other
packing’ and in Heading 48.18 of the new Tariff, the
word ’containers’ is preceded by the words ’cartons,
boxes’ and is followed by the words ’and cases’. It is a
well-accepted canon of statutory construction that when
two or more words which are susceptible of analogous
meaning are coupled together they are understood to be
used in their cognate sense. It is based on the principle
that words take as it were their colour from each other,
that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous
to a less general. [See : Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. State of
Gujarat {1969 (1) SCR 235 at p.240}]. Considering the
expression ’containers’ in the context in which it is used
in the relevant tariff item, we are of the opinion that the
said expression has to be construed to mean ’packing
containers’ which are analogous to boxes and cartons,
that is, an enclosed receptacle which can be used for
storage and transportation of articles. Egg trays being
receptacles which are not covered or enclosed cannot be
used for transportation of articles and, therefore, they
cannot be regarded as ’containers’ under the above
mentioned entries in the Excise Tariff."
As stated above, the phrase ’other packing container’ would not
be a box, carton or bag and the same is used to cover packing articles
which are not boxes, cartons or bags. Applying the test laid down in
the aforesaid judgment, the said phrase is to be understood in context
of previous words and on the basis of well accepted canons of
statutory construction that when two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are
understood to be used in their cognate sense and the more general is
restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. Normally,
’container’ would mean a receptacle or a flexible covering for
shipment of goods. As such ’packing containers’ are analogous to
boxes and cartons, that is, an enclosed receptacle which can be used
for storage and transportation of articles. That means, ’container’
would contain smaller boxes inside and thereafter goods will be
transported and would normally be reusable. Cigarette packets are not
used for transporting and there is no question of reusing the same. In
this context, cigarette packet would be a small box.
This interpretation would be in conformity with the Central
Excise Rules (Rules 71, 72, 74 and 93 referred to hereinafter).
However, learned senior counsel Mr. Ganesh referred to the
said Rules to contend to the contrary. He submitted that under Rule
93 the Department itself considers the cigarette packets as ’packets’
and not as ’boxes’ and in sharp contrast Rule specifically refers to
boxes/booklets in respect of matches in Rules 71, 72 and 74. For
considering this contention, we would refer to the Rules 71, 72 and
74, which are as under:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
"Rule 71. Method of Packing. (1) No packet or
case containing boxes or booklets of matches other than
those intended for export out of India shall be closed and
reckoned as a unit unless a Central Excise Stamps of the
appropriate class has been affixed to each box or booklet
in the manner laid in rule 70.
(2) Each case or packet shall contain only an
integral number, whether one or more than one, of
gross of boxes or booklets of matches. The boxes or
booklets in each case or packet shall contain the same
number of matches on the average and shall, except
where the matches are exempted from bearing Central
Excise Stamps, bear Central Excise Stamps of the same
class.
(3) Every packet, box or booklet, or the
manufacturer’s label affixed thereto shall bear in clearly
discernible characters, the name of the factory or a
distinguishing mark, which may take the form of a
special design whereby the origin of the matches can be
traced. Specimens of all such labels shall be submitted to
the Collector for his approval and record, before they are
brought into use:
Provided that the Collector may by an order in
writing and subject to such limitations and conditions as
may be prescribed by him in the order relax the
provisions of this sub-rule.
(4) On each case or packet of matches shall be
legibly marked in ink or oil colour a progressive number,
commencing with No.1, for each year and in different
series for each class of matches, the number of gross of
boxes or booklets contained in each case or packet and
the grade of Central Excise Stamps affixed thereto.
(5) Every box or booklet of matches, other than
matches of the type known as Bengal Lights, issued for
home consumption, shall have on the box or booklet, or
on the manufacturer’s label affixed thereto, a statement in
clearly discernible character, of the retail price at which
the manufacturer intends that the box or booklet should
be sold:
Provided that the Collector may by an order in
writing and subject to such limitations and conditions as
may be prescribed by him in the order relax the
provisions of this sub-rule.
Rule 72. Examination by proper officer at the
factory. If the proper officer is in doubt whether
Central Excise Stamps have been affixed or whether
boxes or booklets contain the proper number of matches
or whether cases or packets contain proper number of
boxes or booklets, he may require the licensee to open
the case, packet, boxes, or booklets for examination and
in the event of any discrepancy, he may detain the goods.
Rule 74. Disposal of matches examined under rule
72 or 73 and of Central Excise Stamps damaged during
examination. (1) If any Central Excise Stamps are torn
during examination under rule 72, or rule 73, the proper
officer may order that the containers to which they are
affixed shall be returned to the licensee for re-stamping
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
and shall be replaced immediately by an equal number of
boxes or booklets of the same class from the finished
stock.
(2) If examination under rule 72 or rule 73
shows that Central Excise Stamps of insufficient value
have been affixed, the proper officer may order the boxes
or booklets in question to be returned to the factory,
where the Central Excise Stamps shall be removed and
replaced by others of the proper value.
Referring to the Rules 71, 72 and 74 as they are, it is apparent
that the word ’packet’ is used in a sense of larger box / container
which contains boxes or booklet of match boxes. As such, these
Rules indicate that packet is in the nature of box which contains
number of match boxes. Further, this aspect is made clear in Rule
93(d)(2) which specifically provides that each packet containing
cigarettes consists of wooden, tin or cardboard box opening only at
the top or of a paper wrapper top completely closed on all sides. So
cigarette packet in this case would be a part of the box which may be
wooden, tin or cardboard box or of a paper wrapper. Relevant part of
Rule 93 provides as under:
"Rule 93. Manufacture and disposal of excisable
tobacco products. No excisable tobacco products shall
be delivered from any factory except under the following
conditions:
(a) Such products shall be made into separate
packets.
(b) ...
(c)
(d) No cigars and cheroots mentioned in
Heading No.24.02 of the Schedule to the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)
shall be delivered from any factory unless
(1) they are put into packets containing
5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 cigars or
cheroots, as they case may be;
(2) each such packet consists of a
wooden, tin or cardboard box
opening only at the top or of a paper
wrapper top completely closed on all
sides and with all sides and with all
outer edges gummed down."
As stated in the Rule, a cigarette packet may contain 5, 10, 25,
50 or more cigarettes. That cigarette packet would be packed into a
wooden, tin or cardboard box opening only at the top.
The learned counsel also referred to the decision rendered by
this Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Punjab Anand Lamps
Industries [1989 (43) ELT 816] and contended that it was required to
be decided whether such packets were commercially known and
marketable as packets, boxes or containers? He submitted that the
dictionary meaning of the word ’box’ is not required to be resorted to
in the present case because cigarette packet is not commercially
known in the market as ’box’ or ’carton’ and as such is not marketable
as commodity. In that case, the Court considered whether bulb
sleeves and tube sleeves manufactured by Punjab Anand Lamps and
used for packing the electric bulbs and tubes were excisable items and
whether they were printed boxes / printed cartons? In that context the
Court observed thus:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
"4. We have perused the order of the Tribunal.
It is evident that one of the meanings, according to the
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, which the
Tribunal had referred, is that box is ’a case of a
receptacle usually having a lid’ and in view of the
purpose for which this is used in the transaction, the
Tribunal found that drums of sleeves manufactured by
the respondent could not be called a ’box’ or a ’carton’
because the box must have a lid. The Tribunal noted
that sleeves by themselves could not contain anything
because these are open ended from both sides.
5. In order to consider the question whether the
exemption notification was applicable or not in view of
the terms of the notification, it is necessary to find out
whether these sleeves bulbs or sleeves or tube light
sleeves manufactured for the purpose of packing the
electric bulbs and tubes are printed box and cartons. In
our opinion, the Tribunal approach the question from the
literal meaning as well as the functional use of the
expressions employed. As these sleeves and tube sleeves
manufactured by the respondent had no independent
market as such, and as these were utilised for captive
consumption for the end-product manufactured by the
respondent, in our opinion, in the absence of any positive
and reliable evidence that there was either a market for
these goods manufactured by the respondent and in that
market these bulb sleeves and tube sleeves are known
and marketable as corrugated boxes and cartons, a fact of
which in the record, there is no positive evidence either
way, in our opinion, the Tribunal proceeded on a correct
basis. We have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the revenue. But we have not been able to
persuade ourselves to accept the contention that Tribunal
committed any error either on the principle of law to be
applicable or the appreciation of the facts in this case."
In the above case also, meaning of the word ’box’ as given by
the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary was referred to and thereafter it
was held that bulb sleeves or tube sleeves had no independent market
and were utilised for captive consumption for the end-product. In the
present case, it is to be understood that in context, cigarette packet
cannot be termed as ’container’ as discussed above but it can be
considered as small packet or a box containing cigarettes.
With regard to marketability, it is to be stated that the decision
in Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1992 (58) ELT 418
(Madras)] upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel, itself would indicate that cigarette packets are marketable. In
that case, what was marketed and purchased was outer shell of
cigarette packet for keeping in cigarettes but it was held not to be a
container. Similarly, in Zupiter Printery and another v. Union of
India etc. [1991 (34) ECR 7 (Delhi)], petitioner was manufacturing
cigarette ’outer shells’ of printed sheets supplied to it by M/s Godfrey
Philips India Ltd., a manufacturer of cigarettes. There are other
matters revealing that such packets or parts thereof are manufactured
as per the order and are sold. This leaves no doubt that such packets
are manufactured and are marketable.
Further, for considering the meaning of the word ’box’ or the
’container’, we have referred to the interpretation of the word
’container’ as given by this Court in G. Clardige & Co.’s case
(supra). In that case also, the Court has referred to the dictionary
meaning of the word ’container’. In any case, for interpreting the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
meaning of the word used in tariff entries or taxing statute, the law is
trade meaning would be applicable if a particular product
description occurs by itself in tariff entry and there is no conflict
between the tariff entry and any other entry requiring to reconcile and
harmonise that tariff entry with any other entry. This is made clear in
Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [(1990) 2
SCC 203] wherein this Court held thus
"36. . There is no doubt that the general principle
of interpretation of tariff entries occurring in a text
(sic tax) statute is of a commercial nomenclature
and understanding between persons in the trade but
it is also a settled legal position that the said
doctrine of commercial nomenclature or trade
understanding should be departed from in a case
where the statutory content in which the tariff
entry appears, requires such a departure. In other
words, in cases where the application of
commercial meaning or trade nomenclature runs
counter to the statutory context in which the said
word was used then the said principle of
interpretation should not be applied. Trade
meaning or commercial nomenclature would be
applicable if a particular product description
occurs by itself in a tariff entry and there is no
conflict between the tariff entry and any other
entry requiring to reconcile and harmonise that
tariff entry with any other entry.
40. It may be pointed out that this Court has clearly
and unequivocally laid down that it is not
permissible but in fact it is absolutely necessary to
depart from the trade meaning or commercial
nomenclature test where the trade or commercial
meaning does not fit into the scheme of the
commercial statements. This Court referring to the
observation of Pullock, B. in Grenfell v. Inland
Revenue Commissioner [(1876) 1 Ex. D 242]
observed:
"that if a statute contains
language which is capable of being
construed in a popular sense such
statute is not to be construed
according to the strict or technical
meaning of the language contained in
it, but is to be construed in its popular
sense, meaning of course, by the
words ’popular sense’, that sense
which people conversant with the
subject matter with which the statute
is dealing would attribute to it." But
"if a word in its popular sense and
read in an ordinary way is capable of
two constructions, it is wise to adopt
such a construction as is based on the
assumption that Parliament merely
intended to give so much power as
was necessary for carrying out the
objects of the Act and not to give any
unnecessary powers. In other words,
the construction or the words is to be
adapted to the fitness of the matter of
the statute."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that for interpreting
tariff entries trade meaning as well as dictionary meaning is also
required to be considered to reconcile and harmonise the tariff entry.
In the present case, meaning of the word ’box’ for the purpose of
interpreting the tariff item would be a case or receptacle usually
rectangular or cylindrical and with a lid of wooden, metal, card etc.
Hence, the description of ’cigarette packet’ would fit in the meaning
of the word ’box’ as it is a rectangular receptacle with a lid with a
protective case or a covering for cigarettes. Further, the meaning of
the word ’container’ in context of the tariff item would be (1) that
contains a receptacle or flexible covering for shipments or transport of
goods; (2) it will be relatively large, reusable enclosure filled with
smaller packages; and (3) it may contain number of boxes. But, it
should not be by itself box, carton or bag. Therefore, it would be
difficult to hold that cigarette packet is ’other packing container’.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision
rendered by the Madras High Court in Asia Tobacco Company Ltd.
(supra) and submitted that cigarette packet was held not to be a
printed box or a printed carton, but it was a container or an article
made of paper and submitted that the said decision is accepted by the
Department since 1991. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge
considered as to whether the cigarette packets are covered under Item
No.17 of the First Schedule and are liable for duty and whether the
same is exempted from duty in view of the Notification No. 66/82
dated 28.2.1982? The Court considered the exemption notification
along with clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and
Customs on 7.4.1982 regarding classification of the printed cigarette
packet shells wherein it has been stated as follows: -
"The matter has been examined and the Board is of
the view that these printed shells are in the nature of
printed boxes (slide type of boxes) and are accordingly
classifiable under Item 17(4); they would not be eligible
for the exemption granted under Notification No. 66/82-
C.E. The Board is also of the view that if the inner slides
are manufactured and cleared along with outer slides,
duty would be chargeable on the value of the outer shell
and the inner slide. However, if the shells are cleared
from a factory on payment of duty under Tariff Item
17(4) and if the inner slides are inserted into these shells,
along with cigarettes in the cigarette factory, no further
duty liability would be attracted under Tariff Item 17(4)."
The Court thereafter referred to the following part of the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Department:
"With regard to the 12th paragraph of the affidavit,
I submit that the cigarette packet is known only as a
packet and not as a box in the Trade parlance."
The Court thereafter relied upon the decision in Punjab Anand
Lamps Industries (supra) and observed thus:
".. In view of the ratio laid down in the above
decision and in view of the fact that there is absolutely
nothing to show that the shells and slides that would
come to the carton and that packet or packing container is
only a packet of cigarette therein and it cannot be said
that the said items are also liable for duty and are not
entitled to exemption as per the Notification. It is not in
dispute that prior to the introduction of Tariff Item 17(4)
by the Finance Bill of 1982, the outer shells and inner
slides were classified under Tariff Item 68 and they were
exempted from the whole of the duty. Even while
considering the process of packing of cigarettes, it is seen
that the packet is completed only after cigarettes have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
been put in it. Cigarettes are put first in the bundling
paper and then placed in the slide. The slide along with
the cigarettes is then inserted into the outer shell. The
packet of cigarettes is thus completed at a stage when
cigarettes are already in it. It is not in dispute that at this
stage of assembly, it is not only the packet which is
assembled but a packet of cigarettes containing cigarettes
therein. Thus if this assembly is to be treated as
manufacture, the manufacture is not of a packet but of a
cigarette packet containing cigarettes. Thus a cigarette
packet cannot be subjected to duty twice over. Even
otherwise it is submitted that the outer shells and inner
slides cannot be subjected to any separate assessment.
Whatever it may be, there is absolutely nothing to show
that the outer shells are to be called thus as packets and
liable to excise duty."
It is difficult to understand the aforesaid reasoning. Cigarette
packet without cigarette is a different article. Excise duty is levied on
cigarettes as well as the packet containing cigarettes. Secondly, in the
case of Punjab Anand Lamps Industries (supra), this Court held that
the judgment rendered by the Tribunal does not call for interference
because the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that bulb sleeves and
tube sleeves which were used to pack the electric bulbs and tubes
were not printed boxes or cartons as the said items were utilized for
captive consumption for the end product manufactured by the
Company and that it has no independent market. Further, it was found
that sleeves were not having a lid and, therefore, it could not be called
a box or a carton. In the present case, the situation is different.
Learned counsel further referred to the decision rendered by the
High Court of Delhi in Zupiter Printery’s case (supra). In that case,
the petitioner-Company was manufacturing cigarette outer shells of
printed sheets supplied to it by M/s Godfrey Phillips India Limited, a
manufacturer of cigarettes. Petitioner was charging the said Company
conversion charges only, i.e. converting the printed sheets into outer
shells. The Court considered that outer shell by itself cannot function
either as a box or container because outer shell by itself cannot hold
the cigarettes and the other important component for a packet is the
insertion of slide which makes it a container or a box. Dealing with
the facts of the case, the Court observed thus:
"14. We had the privilege to see this outer shell,
i.e. the product of the petitioner. It is open from both
sides. Without the slide it cannot hold or contain
cigarettes. It is only when slide is inserted that it
becomes complete and can be called a box or container,
but without slide it is neither. Broad description of the
shell does not fit in the expression of box or container.
After considering the decision in G. Clardige & Co.’s case
(supra), the Court held thus:
"..Considering the expression ’containers’ in the
context in which it is used, the said expression has to be
construed to mean ’packing containers’ which are
analogous to boxes and cartons, that is, an enclosed
receptacle which can be used for storage and
transportation of articles. The shell, i.e. the product of
the petitioner, is open from both the sides. In the absence
of the slide this shell by itself will not be in a position to
hold the cigarettes. It is only when the slide is inserted
inside the shell that it can be called a "box" or
"container" but without slide it is neither. Broad
description of the shell does not fit in the expression of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
box or container."
From the aforesaid two decisions, it is apparent that a cigarette
packet containing shell and the slide covering all sides would be a
box. Further, there is no question of double taxation because excise
duty on cigarettes is separately levied and in regard to packet
containing cigarettes, duty is to be levied on the basis of tariff item 17.
In the result, appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Tribunal is set aside and the orders passed by the Assistant
Collector of Central Excise are restored. There shall be no order as to
costs.
22