"http://JUDIS.NIC.IN \nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA\nPage 1 of 4 \nPETITIONER:\nM/S WARDEN & CO.(INDIA) PVT.LTD.\n Vs.\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE.\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1995\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 740 JT 1995 (2) 79\n 1995 SCALE (1)405\nACT:\nHEADNOTE:\nJUDGMENT:\n1. This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central\nExcise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ’the\nAct’).\n2. The appellant has been manufacturing fibre drum, which\nconsists of a circular tube exclusively made out of paper or\npaper-board.. The lid and the bottom are made of ply wood\nwhich is reinforced with mild steel rings and clamps.\nAccording to the appellant, in the total weight of the fibre\ndrum,the predominant weight is of the paper or paper board.\nThe same is the position in respect of value of the said\nfibre drum, the predominant value being of the paper or\npaper board. Commercially, it is known as a paper product.\n3. The dispute is as to whether the fibre drum should be\nclassified under Item No. 17(4) as claimed by the appellant\nor under the residuary Item No.68, which is the stand of the\nRevenue. There is no dispute that prior to the Finance Act,\n1982, it was classified under the residuary Item No.68. But\nthereafter the appellant sought classification of the said\nfibre drum under Item No. 17(4) and exemption under Noti-\nfication No.66 of 1982. By an order dated 24.3.1982, the\nAssistant Collector of the Central Excise, approved the\nclassification as sought by the appellant. The Trade Notice\nNo.49(MP) paper (2) 1982 dated 24.3.1982 (hereinafter\nreferred to as the ’Trade Notice’) in respect of Item No.\n17(4) said:-\n \"sub-item(4) covers packing, transport,\n storage, or sale of merchandise whether or not\n having a decorative value, bags, canes,\n packets, sacks, boxes, cartons, drums fitted\n with reinforcing circular\n 81\n bands of other materials, tubular containers\n for posting documents, garment bags, the like\n are also covered under this subitem\".\nThe Assistant Collector of Central Excise however, by an\n\nhttp://JUDIS.NIC.IN \nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA\nPage 2 of 4 \norder dated 14.4.1982 called upon the appellant to file a\nrevised classification list classifying fibre drum under\nItem 68, on the ground that as the fibre drum was not made\nexclusively out of paper, it was not eligible for\nclassification under Item No. 17(4). In view of the letter\naforesaid, the appellant filed revised classification list\nNo.3/82 classifying the fibre drum under Item No.68 under\nprotest. The appellant addressed a letter dated 29.6.1982\nrepresenting its case that fibre drum was classifiable under\nItem No. 17(4) and was not classifiable under Item No.68.\nUltimately-by an order dated 20.10.1982, the Assistant\nCollector of Central Excise, held that Item No. 17(4) and\nNotification No.66/82 were only applicable to such goods and\narticles which were made exclusively out of paper or paper\nboard. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed\nbefore the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The said\nappeal was allowed on the finding that fibre drum was\nclassifiable under Item No.17(4). The Collector of Central\nExcise (Appeals) referred to the composition of the fibre\ndrum and the aforesaid Trade Notice in support of his\nfinding.\n4. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Customs,\nExcise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter re-\nferred to as ’the Tribunal’). The Tribunal came to the\nconclusion that the fibre drum manufactured by the appellant\nwas classifiable under Item No.68 of the Central Excise\nTariff and not under Item No.17(4). On that finding the\norder of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was set\naside.\n5. On behalf of the appellant, it was urged that there\nwas no dispute that the fibre drum -manufactured by the\nappellant is used as packing containers. The only dispute\nis as to whether it is covered by Item No. 17(4), when apart\nfrom paper or paper board, the lid and the bottom of the\nsaid fibre drum are made of ply wood and to reinforce the\nsame a steel ring has been placed The relevant part of Item\nNo. 17 is as follows:-\n \"17. Paper and paper board, all sorts\n (including paste-board, mill board, straw\n board, cardboard and corrugated board), and\n articles thereof specified below, in or in\n relation to the manufacture of which any\n process is ordinarily carried on with the aid\n of power:-\n (1) ............................\n (2).......................................\n (3).......................................\n (4) Boxes, cartons, bags and other packing\n containers (including flattened or TWENTY TWO\n folded boxes and flattened or folded AND A\n HALF cartons, whether or not printed and\n PERCENT whether in assessmbled or unassembled\n AD VALOREM condition.\"\nOn a plain reading, boxes, cartons, bags and other packing\ncontainers manufactured from paper or paper board shall be\ncovered under Item No. 17 because paper, paper board and all\nsorts including paste board, mill board, corrugated board\nand articles thereof have been specified in clauses 1 to 4\nof Item No. 17. It need not be pointed out that boxes,\ncartons, bags and other packing containers, mentioned in\nItem No.17(4) must have been manu-\n82\nfactured out of paper or paper board. But if just to\nstrengthen the packing container, a small piece of ply wood\nor a steel ring is introduced, whether such packing contain-\n\nhttp://JUDIS.NIC.IN \nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA\nPage 3 of 4 \ners shall be out of the purview of Item No. 17(4)? The\nTribunal has referred to the details of the fibre drum by\nsaying that the cylinderical portion of the fibre drum is\nmade of paper and its bottom and top are of ply wood,\nreinforced with mild steel ring and clamp. The Tribunal has\nalso mentioned in the impugned order that according to the\nappellant, in terms of the percentage content, paper\nconstitutes 51.18% of the finished product, the plywood\ncontent is about 23.57% and rings and clamps about 19.1/2%.\nEven before this Court, there was no dispute, that the\npercentage of the paper content is 51.18% only and the\nremaining 48.82% consists of plywood, rings and clamps etc.\nIn this background, can it be said that the fibre drum which\nis a container is made of \"paper and paper board, -ill sorts\n(including paste-board, mill board, straw board, cardboard\nand corrugated board), -and articles thereof........for\nbeing covered by tariff Item No. 17. Tariff Item No. 17 read\nas a whole alongwith different sub-clauses makes it\nabundantly clear that to be included in the said tariff\nItem, the product must be of paper, paper board and all\nsorts. How a product can be covered by the said tariff Item\nNo.17 including 17(4) if the paper or paper board\nconstitutes only 51.18% and the rest 48.82% consists of\nplywood content, rings and clamps etc,?\n6. On behalf of the appellant, it was pointed out that\ninternationally, composite paper board drums and containers\neven when they are fitted with reinforcing circular bands of\nother materials, other than paper, e.g. textile backings,\nwooden supports, string handles, metal or plastic\ncorners,they are classified under heading 48.16 under\nCustoms Co-operation Nomenclature (CCCN - Brussels), which\nis equivalent to Tariff Item No. 17(4).\n7. The Glossary of Terms relating to Paper and Flexible\nPackaging issued by Indian Standards Institution (IS :\n7186 -1973) defines ’Fibre board Drum’ as \"a shipping\npackage with cylindrical sidewall composed of paper or board\nhaving disc ends of similar or different materials, such as\nsteel, wood etc.\" Thus, in spite of plywood discs at the top\nand the bottom, the fibre drum is to be treated as a fibre\nboard drum, according to the Glossary of Terms relating to\nPaper and Flexible Packaging issued by the Indian Standards\nInstitution. Whatever may be the classification by the\ncustoms Co-operation Nomenclature (CCCN - Brussels), but\nTariff Item No. 17, including 17(4) clearly specify that\nproducts covered by said Item No. 17 must be the product of\npaper, paper board and all sorts.\n8. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance was placed on the\njudgment of this Court in the case of Geep Flashlight\nIndustries Ltd., v. Union of India, 1985(2) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)\nwhere this Court had to consider Tariff Item No.15A(2) which\nread as under:\n \"Articles made of plastics, all sons, in-\n cluding tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks,\n other rectangular or profile shape whether\n laminated or not, and whether rigid or\n flexible including lay flat tubings and\n polyinyl chlorides sheets......\n In that connection, it was said:\n \"The learned Counsel Contended that the\n 83\n plastic torch manufactured by the petitioner\n is nothing else but plastic tube made of\n plastic in which certain other devices are\n inserted so as to make it a torch but it\n nonetheless retains the character of a plastic\n\nhttp://JUDIS.NIC.IN \nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA\nPage 4 of 4 \n tube. A mere reference to Tariff Item No.\n 15A(2) would show that the articles therein\n described are plastic material in different\n shape and form and not articles made from such\n plastic material. There is a noticeable\n difference between plastic material in\n different shape and form such as tubes, rods,\n sheets etc. and articles made from such\n plastic material such as plastic torch. It\n would be doing violence to language if one\n were to include plastic torch in articles\n under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) on the ground\n that a plastic tube is used for manufacturing\n plastic torch. Articles such as tubes, rods,\n sheets, foils, sticks etc. of plastic material\n merely describe plastic material in different\n shape and form and each word used therein\n takes its colour from the word just preceding\n and just succeeding and the adjectival clause\n ’articles made of plastics’. Articles made of\n plastic meaning article made wholly of\n commodity commercially known as plastics, and\n not articles made from plastics along with\n other materials.\n (emphasis supplied)\n9. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment in the\ncase of M/s.Indian Textile Paper Tube Company Ltd. Madras\nv. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai 1984(18)E.L.T.35,\nwhere it was said that Vim Containers and Defence Containers\ncannot be said to be articles of paper or paper board; they\nare composite containers made of paper, paper board and\nother metal components. The material components like lids\nand bottoms were made of tin plates and black plates and\nprinted aluminium foils were added. Paper or paper board\nwas one of the raw materials. It was classified under Item\nNo.68 and not under Item No. 17(4), because it was held that\nthey cannot be held to be articles of paper or paper board,\nin view of the lids and bottoms of such Vim Containers and\nDefence Containers having been made of tin plates and black\nplates with printed aluminium foils having been added. We\nare informed that a Special Leave Petition filed against the\nsaid judgment has been rejected by this Court. According to\nus, there is not much difference in the components of Fibre\nDrum from Vim Container and Defence Container. The Tribunal\nhas rightly come to the conclusion that such fibre drums\nshall not be covered by Item No. 17(4) and they shall be\ncovered by residuary Item No.68.\n10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the\nTribunal is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.\n84\n"