I.T.C. LIMITED versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 26-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I. T.C. LIMITED 
A 
V. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY 
NOVEMBER 26, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 
Schedule-Headings 4818.19 and 4818. 9()- Parts of cigarette packets-
'Slides' and 'slits '-Whether excisable goods-Since question of excisability C 
of 'slides' and 'slits' was not dealt with specifically by the appellate authority, 
the cases are remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal afresh after 
giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence-Inasmuch as necessity of 
remanding the case has arisen because of the assessee not taking the plea 
before the original authority, the assessee would pay Rs. 15,000 as costs to D 
Revenue. 
CIVIL APPEi.LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 662 I of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.1994 of the Customs, Excise E 
and Gold (Central) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E. 1386/ 
88-C in Final Order No. 76/94C. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 498/1999. 
S. Ganesh, Ms. Sushma Sharma, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal 
and Rajan Narain for the Appellants. 
A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, K.C. Kaushik and B. Krishna Prasad 
F 
for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The appellant-assessee is common in these appeals which relate to the 
same period, namely, 1986 to 1988, but arise out of orders of different 
361 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunals (for short, 'the 
Tribunal') and pertain to the jurisdiction of different original authorities. 
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 1995 is from the common order of the Tribunal, 
Bench at New Delhi, in Final order Nos. 76-77194-C and Misc. order No.44/ 
94-C dated February 28, 1994. That order was followed by the Tribunal 
B Bench •1*L~ombay in Final Order No. E/616/98-C in Appeal No.792/94-C 
dated August 21, 1998, from which Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1999 arises. 
The common question that arises in these appeals is: 
whether parts of cigarette packets-'slides' and 'slits' are excisable goods 
C within the meaning of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
The facts, which led to the filing of Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 1995, 
may be noticed here. 
The appellant filed classification list showing 'slides' under heading 
D 4818. 19 at 'nil' duty. By notice dated 3rd April, 1986, the Superintendent 
of Central Excise required the appellant to show cause as to why 'slides' 
should not be classified under sub-heading 4818.90. On 17th April, 1986, the 
appellant replied to the show-cause notice justifying classification as claimed 
by it. The contention of the appellant was rejected by the Assistant Collector, 
Central Excise. In appeal before the Collector (Appeals) , opportunity was 
E given for oral hearing as also for filing the synopsis of submissions. In the 
synopsis of submissions, the appellant took the plea that 'slides' were .not 
excisable. However, that point was not adverted to by the Collector (Appeals), 
who held that no manufacturing process was involved in the preparation of 
'slides' and they were not marketable. However, he found that 'slides' could 
be classified under sub-heading 4818.90 and dismissed the appeal on February 
F 
11, 1988. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant and the Revenue preferred 
appeals before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The said Bench did not 
specifically record any finding with regard to the manufacturing process; 
marketability of 'slides' was assumed on the ground that they bear different 
name and are covered by sub-heading 4818. 90 and, thus, dismissed the appeals 
G by order dated 28th February, 1994, which was followed by the Tribunal 
Bench at Bombay in regard to both 'slides' and 'slits' in the order under 
appeal in Civil Appeal no. 498 of 1999 dated 21st August, 1998. Thus, the 
classification of 'slides' and 'slits' is in issue in these appeals. 
Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, has 
H contended that as the Tribunal did not reeord any finding in regard to the 
.. 
/ 
-· 
l.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. 
363 
manufacturing process and that the finding in regard to marketability is based A 
on surmises and not on any material, therefore, the orders under appeal are 
liable to be set aside, so the appeals may be remanded to the Tribunal for 
fresh disposal. 
Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, 
on the other hand, submits that the question of excisability
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.