M/S. WARDEN AND CO., (INDIA) PVT. LIU. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 01-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M/S. WARDEN AND CO., (INDIA) PVT. Liu. 
v 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE 
FEBRUARY 1, 1995 
[AM. AHMADI, CJI, AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Central Excise Tariff-Item No. 
17(4) and residumy Item No. 68-Fibre D1Um-Cylindrica/ portion of d1Um 
made of pape1~Bottom and top of plywood reinforced with steel ring and 
C clamp-Paper constituting SJ.18% of finished product-48.82% of plywood, 
rings and clamps-Whether fibre d1Um is covered by Item No. 17(4}-Held, 
No-It shall be covered by Item No. 68. 
The appellant, manufacturing fibre drum which consisted of circular 
tube made out of paper or paper-board and the lid and the bottom made 
D of plywood, reinforced with mild steel rings and clamps, sought classifica· 
tion of the said drum under Item No.17(4) and exemption under notifica· 
tion No. 66 of 1982. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, approved 
the classification sought. However, by a subsequent order, the appellant 
was called upon to file a revised classification list classifying fibre drum 
E under item 68, on the ground that the fibre drum was not made exclusively 
out of paper, it was not eligible for classification under Item No. 17(4): 
The appellant filed revised classification while representing his case 
that fibre drum was classifiable under Item No. 17(4) and not under Item 
• No. 68. However, the Assistant Collector held that Item No.17(4) was only 
F applicable to such goods and articles which were made exclusively out of 
paper or paper board. Appeal filed against this order was allowed on the 
finding that fibre drum was classifiable under item No.17(4). However, on 
appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the fibre drum 
was classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not 
G under Item No. 17(4). Hence this appeal. 
The appellant urged that internationally, composite paper board 
drums and containers even when fitted with reinforcing circular bands of 
other materials, other than they were classified under heading 48.16 under 
Customs co-operation Nomenclature which was equivalent to Tariff Item 
H No.17(4). 
738 
-
.. 
WARDEN AND CO. (I) PVf. LTD. v. COLLECTOROFCENTRALEXCISE(N.P.SINGH,J.]739 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: To be included in the tariff Item No. 17, the product must 
be of paper, paper board and all sorts. The fibre drum manufactured by 
appellanf'was a container made of the paper content constituting 51.18% 
A 
of the finished product, the plywood content of about 23.57% and rings and B. 
clamps of about 19.1/2%. It could not be held to be article of paper or paper 
board, in view of the top and bottom of such drum having been made of 
plywood reinforced with mild steel ring and clamp. Hence such a fibre 
drum shall not be covered by Item No.17(4) and it shall be covered by 
residuary Item No. 68. 
M/s. Indian Textile Paper Tube Company Ltd. Madras v. Collector of 
Central Excise, Madurai, (1984) 18 ELT 35, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.85 of the Central Excises 
& Salt Act, 1944 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate 
Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/883/85-C Order No. 577 of 1985-C. 
c 
D 
AN. Haksar, U.A. Rana, Rajiv Tyagi, Anand Prasad for Gagrat & E 
Co. 
Dr. R.R. Misra, W. A. Qadri and V.K. Verma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.P. SINGH, J. This-is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central 
Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
F 
The appellant has been manufacturing fibre drum, which consists of 
a circular tube exclusively made out of paper or paper-board. The lid and 
the bottom are made of plywood which is reinforced with mild steel rings G 
and c).amps. According to the appellant, in the total weight of the .I7bre 
drum, the predominant weight is of the paper or paper board. The same 
is the position in respect of value of the said fibre drum, the predominant 
value being of t~e paper or paper board. Commercially, it is known as a 
paper product. 
H 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The dispute is as to whet~er the fibre drum should be classified . 
under. Item No.17( 4) as claimed by the appellant or under the residuary 
...,......... 
Item No. 68 which is the stand. of the Revenue. There is no dispute that 
prior to the Finance Act, 1982, it was classified under the residuary Item 
.. 
No. 68. But ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.