ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the paints that the appellant manufactures. The claim that it made for classifying the goods under heading 32.13 of the Tariff as sign board painter’s colours has been denied on the ground that it could not be determined with any degree of certainty that paint would only be used by sign board painters once it reaches the market and on the further ground that the goods were not put up in any of the kinds of containers mentioned in the heading. The heading requires the goods to be in tablets, tubes, jars, bottles, pans or in similar forms of packing, they were not metal tins. The decision of the Tribunal in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CCE – 1992 (60) E.L.T. 392 was also relied upon by the adjudicating and the appellate authority.
2. The contentions of the representative of the appellant are these. The ratio of the Tribunal’s decision is not applicable to the facts in the present case. In Goodlass Nerolac Paint considered by the Tribunal it was accepted by the manufacturer that the paint was in fact classifiable under 32.08; the Tribunal therefore concluded that the mere fact that it was sold in smaller container did not result in it being classifiable as sign board painter’s colour. The appellant before us only sold the good in one packing in smaller packing of 500, 200, 100 and 50 ml. The Tariff heading used the expression “similar forms of packing” while referring to the container and the tin containers in which the goods are packed are similar to the containers mentioned in the heading.
3. The departmental representative reiterates the finding by the adjudicating and appellate authority.
4. We agree that the applicability of the Tribunal’s decision in Good-lass Nerolac Paints to the facts before us is questionable. The Tribunal in Good-lass Nerolac Paints held that the paint which was admitted by the manufacturer to be otherwise classifiable under a different heading would not become sign board painter’s colours merely because it was packed in a different kind of packing. There is no admission before us that the paint is otherwise classifiable in some other heading.
5. We are however unable to accept the other argument. The heading requires the goods to be packed in tablets, tubes, jars, bottles, pans or similar forms or packings. The contention is that the goods are similar to jar or bottles, the only difference being that they are made of metal. A reference to the dictionary indicates the following meaning for jars – Webster’s Encyclopaedia Unabridged Dictionary of the English language, 1989 edition “a broad mouth container, usually cylindrical and of glass or earthenware”. -The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, jar “A usu. cylindrical container of glass, earthenware or stoneware with no spout or handle (or with two handles).” This definition contrasts with the definition of tin and can contained in this dictionary. Tin is defined as “a container made of tin or (more usually) tin plate or aluminium” and can is defined as “A vessel for holding liquids, now spec, one of metal, and usu. cylindrical with a handle over the top, any cylindrical metal container, a bin.” It is clear from these that whereas a jar is usually made of metal or earthenware, a tin or can is made of metal. The container in which the appellant packed was a tin or a can. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis it cannot be said that the metal container would be of a similar packing to the goods mentioned in the heading. They would therefore not be classifiable under that heading.
6. Appeal dismissed.