ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (A), Bombay dated 11-10-1990.
2. It appears from the records that a notice for hearing was sent to the respondents but they informed the Registry that they do not wish to appear for personal hearing and would request that the case may be decided on the basis of merits and grounds mentioned in C.O. Hence, we have gone through the records and heard the ld. DR.
3. Ld. DR stated that the assessee filed a classification List No. 18/89-90, dated 17-4-1989 in r/o products falling under Chapter 48 & 49. The party has classified the product ‘Printed Catch Covers’ under Sub-heading 4901.90 showing effective rate of duty payable at nil rate in terms of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 40.
4. The A.C. has not touched the issue of classification of printed catch covers as he has already decided it vide his Order-in-Original No. 12/ACH/ GOA/89, dated 31-1-1989 that this product is classifiable under Sub-heading No. 4819.12. However being aggrieved by the above order the party, had filed an appeal when Collector (A), has held vide his order dated 11-10-1990 that the issue of catch covers has already been decided by him under his order-in-appeal dated 6-8-1990 and that the same merits classification under Sub-heading No. 4819.19 (and chargeable to nil rate of duty) in view of his findings recorded in the said order-in-appeal. The department has already filed an appeal to CEGAT, Bombay. Since the printed catch covers of paper/paper board are manufactured by printing, punching, creasing and the pasting to form a container to hold strips of pharmaceutical products, they become printed containers and are considered to be correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 4819.12 chargeable @ 15% ad valorem in terms of Notification 67/82, dated 28-2-1982 and SED equivalent to 5% of BED.
5. Collector (A) has erred in deciding the case against the department classifying the product under Sub heading 4819.19. He has also erred in not holding the printed catch covers to be a container as it is particularly designed to contain/hold medicine strips which are meant either for sale of for free distribution. Actually, the same is correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 4819.12 chargeable to BED @ 15% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 67/82, dated 28-2-1982.
6. The respondents have referred to some CO. having been filed by them (in their letter dated Febuary 21,1997) but there is no such cross-objection in the record before us and none has been cause listed for hearing. However, in order to be fair to all the sides, we have taken into consideration the submissions made by the respondents before the Collector (A).
7. The respondent had got inter alia, submitted before Collector (A) that printed catch covers are not packing containers. A printed catch cover is just a cover or a wrapper. It is an advertisement material and therefore rightly classifiable under sub heading 4901.90. The paper board blister cards are product of printing industry and are therefore rightly classifiable under Sub-heading 4901.90. The A.C. erred in placing reliance on the end-use of the product or the specific purpose for which it is used in classifying coated duplex board blister cards under Sub-heading 4823.90. The end-use is not relevant in determining the classification of a product unless the same is specifically mentioned in the tariff. The ratio of decision in National Insulated Cable – 1989 (42) E.L.T. 109 clearly reiterate the said principles. In terms of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 48 the coated duplex board blister cards will fall under Chapter 49. The department has not discharged the burden of proof. With respect to printed folders, printing is done on duty paid sheet of paper often in several languages. The sheet is then folded. By doing this the sheet does not become a folder. The A.C. wholly misdirected himself in holding that the printed folder after printing and with several foldings form an article of paper classifiable under 4823.90. The decision of Paper Prints and Products -1989 (40) E.L.T. 426 clearly established what is meant by a folder.
8. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that before the Collector (A) the classification of four different products was in dispute namely (i) printed catch cover, (ii) paper board blister card, (iii) coated duplex board blister cards (iv) printed brochures/information leaflets.
9. The Collector had remanded the matter to the A.C. insofar as printed cards/sheets (irrespective of nomenclature) as well as coated duplex board blister cards are concerned. As regards printed folder he has observed that the same is a printed brochure printed in various languages and folded just to facilitate insertion in the carton and held it to be classifiable under Heading 49.01.
10. Out of the four items w.r.t. which the Collector had passed the order, the department has come up in appeal in r/o only one item called ‘printed catch covers.’ In respect of this item the Collector has merely mentioned in his order that they merit classification under Sub-heading 4819.19 in view of his findings recorded in his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. KVV-8/90 Goa, dated 6-8-1990. Ld. DR stated that the Collector had classified this item under the aforesaid heading on the ground that catch cover is open from the top and is used for keeping goods such as tablets; but it was the department’s contention that the catch cover qualifies to be a container as it is particularly designed to contain/hold medicine strips which are meant either for sale or for free distribution. The department has further mentioned that they are manufactured by printing/punching/creasing and pasting to form a container to hold strips of pharmaceutical products. As such they are required to be treated as printed containers classifiable under 4819.12 and chargeable to duty in terms of Notification No. 67/82.
11. The respondents have not shown that it is just a cover or a wrapper and is merely an advertisement material. No sample has been produced before us and the department’s contentions regarding the process of manufacture and use and the description of the product has not been shown to be wrong. Hence, we consider that the item is in the nature of containers falling under 4819.12. At the same time the department has not been able to show that such products were chargeable to duty in terms of Notification 67/82. No material or evidence has been produced before us in support of the department’s contention in this regard and therefore, the same has remained unsubstantiated. In view of the above position the order of the Commissioner (A) is modified to the above extent and the appeal is disposed of in terms of above observations and findings as already announced in the open court.