Holding

‘Other packing container’ is a residuary term that excludes items already described as boxes, cartons or bags; a cigarette packet is a small box, not an ‘other packing container’, and therefore the exemption does not apply.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a printed cigarette packet falls under “other packing containers” or “boxes” in Tariff Item No.17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and consequently whether Exemption Notification No.66/82 (dated 28‑Feb‑1982) applies. The Revenue argued that the packet is a printed box, excluded from the exemption, while the assessee contended it is an “other packing container” and thus exempt. The Court held that “other packing container” is a residuary term and cannot include items already described as boxes, cartons or bags; a cigarette packet, being a small box used for storage rather than transport, does not qualify as an “other packing container”. Accordingly, the exemption does not apply and excise duty on the packet is proper. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, restored the Assistant Collector’s order, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a printed cigarette packet is to be classified as a ‘box’ or as ‘other packing container’ under Tariff Item No.17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Whether Exemption Notification No.66/82, which exempts articles of paper or paper‑board falling under Item 17(4) except printed boxes and printed cartons, applies to cigarette packets.

Legislation cited

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
Central Excise Rules, 1944s. Rule 71, s. Rule 72, s. Rule 74, s. Rule 8(1), s. Rule 93
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Subjects

central excisetariff classificationcigarette packetboxother packing containerexemption notificationstatutory constructiontrade meaning

Judgment

A COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS ETC.
v.
MIS. 1.T.C. LTD., BIHAR ETC.

FEBRUARY 6, 2003

B [M.B. SHAH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Item No.17/Central Excise and Salt
Act, 1944; Rule 8(1):
c Exemption Notification-Cigarette packet-Levy of excise duty-
Exemption from-Held, A cigarette packet containing shell and the slides
covering all sides could appropriately be classified as box and not container-
Container is also analogous to box, however, it is generally used for
transportation and storage ofarticles-Exemption Notification not attracted-
D Hence, excise duty was rightly levied on printed cigarette packets by the
Revenue-Central Excise Rules; Rules 71, 72, 74 and 93-Exemption
Notification No.66182.

Words & Phrases:

E 'Container' and 'Box '-Meaning ofand distinction between in the context
, of Central Excise Tariff Act.

The question which arose in these appeals was whether cigarette
packets would be other packing container or boxes within the meaning of
Tariff Item No.17 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The Central Government
F issued the Exemption Notification under the provision of the Central
Excise Rules, exempting articles of paper or paper board falling under
the description of Boxes, cartons, bags and other packaging containers,
from levying of excise duty provided no such exemption was applicable
to printed boxes or printed cartons.

G It was contended for the Revenue that since cigarette packets were
printed boxes, exemption notification was inapplicable.

On behalf of assessee, it was submitted that cigarette packets
conform the description of packaging container; thus exemption
H notification applicable.
934
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. 935
Answering the question in favour of Revenue, the Court A
HELD: I. I. 'other packing container' is a residuary term in the
context of 'box, carton or bag'. If the container is a box, carton or a bag
then it would not be other packing container. The word 'container' is used
in a broad sense. Because in one sense, boxes, ~artons or bags are also
containers. The phrase 'other packing containers' is to be understood in B
the context of previous words and on the basis of well accepted canons of
statutory construction that when two or more words which are susceptible
of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used
in their cognate sense and the more general is restricted to a sense
analogous to a less general. Normally, 'container' would mean a receptacle C
or a flexible covering for shipment of goods. As such 'packing containers'
are analogous to boxes and5artons, that is, an enclosed receptacle which
can be used for storage ifnd transportation of articles. That means,
'container' would contain smaller boxes inside and thereafter goods will

- be transported and would normally be reusable. Cigarette packets are not
used for transporting and there is no question of reusing the same. In this
context, cigarette packet would be a small box. This interpretation would
be in conformity with the Central Excise Rules (Rules 71, 72, 74 and 93).
D

[938-F, G; 941-G, H; 942-A-BI
- '
G. Claridge & Company ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1991 (52) E
ELT 341[, referred to.

Collins Dictionary of the English language and New Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, referred to.

1.2. Rule 93(d)(2) of Central Excise Rules specifically provides that F
each packet containing cigarettes consists of wooden, tin or cardboard box
opening only at the top or of a paper wrapper top completely closed on
all sides. So cigarette packet would be a part of the box which may be
wooden, tin or cardboard box or of a paper wrapper. A cigarette packet
may contain 5, 10, 25, 50 or more cigarettes. That cigarette packet would
be packed into a wooden, tin or cardboard box opening only at the top. G
In the instant case, it is to be understood that in context, cigarette packet
~ cannot be termed as 'container' but it can be considered as small packet
or a box containing cigarettes. [944-A, F; 945-G, HI

1..3 Trade meaning as well as dictionary meaning is also required
to be considered to reconcile and harmonise the tariff entry. In the instant H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] I S.C.R.

A case, meaning of the word 'box' for the purpose of interpreting the tariff
item would be - a case or receptacle usually rectangular or cylindrical and • +
with a lid of wooden, metal, card etc. Hence, the description of 'cigarette
packet' would fit in the meaning of the word 'box'. Meaning of the word
·'container' in context of the tariff item would be - (I) that contains a
receptacle or flexible covering for shipments or transport of goods; (2) it
B will be relatively large, reusable enclosure filled with smaller packages;
and (3) it may contain number of boxes. But, it should not b.e by itself ~
box, carton or bag. Hence, cigarette packet cannot be classified as 'other
packing container'. 1947-E, F, GI

C Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector ofCustoms, Bombay, 11990) 2 SCC
2031, relied on.

Collector of Central Excise v. Punjab Anand Lamps Industries, (19891
43 ELT 816; Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) 58 ELT 418
(Madras); Zupiter Printery and Anr. v. Union of India etc., (1991) 34 ECR
D 7 (Delhi) and G. Clardige & Company Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise,
(1991) 52 ELT 341, referred to.

1.4. Cigarette packet without cigarette is a different article. A
cigarette packet containing shell and the slide covering all slides would
be a box. There is no question of double taxation because excise duty on
E cigarettes is separately levied and in regard to packet containing cigarettes
duty is to be levied on the basis of tariff item 17. 1949-D; 950-D, E)

Zupiter Printery and Anr. v. Union of India etc., (1991) 34 ECR 7
(Delhi) I and G. Clardige & Co. Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, (1991)
F 52 341, relied on.

Asia Tobacco Company Ltd v. Union of India, (1992) 58 ELT 418
(Madras), held inapplicable.

Collector of Central Excise v. Punjab Anand Lamps Industries, (1989)
G 43 ELT 816, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12043-120-
. 54 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3 .3 .1994 of the Customs, Excise
H and Gold (Contr~I) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2726143-
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. [M.B. SHAH. J.] 937
C, C/963/83-C, 1422/85-C etc. against Order No. 91 to I02/94-C. A
J .
K. Swami, Ms. Smitha Inna, Ms. Prabha Swami and B. Krishna Prasad
for the Appellants.

S. Ganesh, R. Sasidharan, Rajan Narain. Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ms.
Sushma Sharma, Ajay Aggarwal, A.R. Madhava Rao and V. Balachandran B
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. Question requiring determination in these appeals is-whether
cigarette packets would be 'other packing containers' or 'boxes' within the C
meaning of Tariff Item No.17 of Central Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act)? It is the contention of the Department that cigarette packet
is a 'small paper box' and cannot be termed as a 'container' which is relatively
a large enclosure. On behalf of the respondent-ITC Limited, which
manufacturers cigarettes, it is submitted that cigarette packet 'would be 'other
racking container' and not 'paper box'. D

__ ,
The aforesaid question is required to be decided by considering the
relevant part of Tariff Item No. 17 and Exemption Notification No.66/82,
C.E, dated 28.2.1982. Tariff Item No.17 reads as under:'

Item No. 17- PAPER AND PAPER BOARD AND ARTICLES THEREOF E

Item No. Tariff Description Rate of Duty

17. Paper and Paper Board, ali sorts (including
paste-board, millboard, strawboard,

- }
cardboard and corrugated board), and
articles thereof specified below, in or in
relation to the manufacture of which any
F

process is ordinarily carried on with the
aid of power-
G
(I}, (2), (3) ....... .

(4) Boxes, cartons, bags and other Thirty-two and a
packing containers (including half per cent ad
flattened or folded boxes and alorem.
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2003) I S.C.R.

A flattened or folded cartons), whether
or not printed and whether in
assembled or unassembled
condition.

The Exemption Notification dated 28.2.1982 reads thus:-
B
"In exercise of the powers confen·ed by sub-rule (I) of rule 8 of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts
articles of paper or paper board, falling under sub-item (4) of Item
No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, (I
c of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon:

Provided that no such exemption shall apply to printed boxes and
printed cartons (including flattened or folded printed boxes and --(-
flattened or folded printed cartons) whether in assembled or
unassembled condition.''
D
The aforesaid tariff item provides for levying excise duty on "boxes,
cartons, bags and other packing containers.'' There is exen:iption notification
granting exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.
However, no such exemption was provided to printed boxes and printed
cartons. In the present case, cigarette packets are printed ones. It is the
E contention of the Department that cigarette packets are printed boxes. Contra,
it is contention of the manufacturer that cigarette packets are "other packing
containers".

For deciding the controversy, first we have to find out what is sought
F to be conveyed by 'boxes, cartons, bags' and 'other packing containers. Bare
reading of the said tariff item would mean-' other packing container' is a
residuary term in context of 'box, carton or bag'. If the container is a box,
carton or a bag then it would not be other packing container. The
word'container' is used in a broad sense. Because in one sense, boxes, cartons
or bags are also containers. This would be clear from dictionary meanings of
G the said words which are as under:-

(Abstract from Collins Dictionary of the English Language)

"Bag 1. A flexible container with an opening at one end.

H 2. Also called: bagful, the contents of or amount contained° in such
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. (M.B. SHAH. J.] 939
a container. A
:..·
3. Any of various measures of quantity, such as a bag containing
I hundred weight of coal

Box I. A receptacle or container made of wood, cardboard etc., usually
rectangular and having a removable or hinged lid. B
-.~
2. Also called: boxful. The contents of such a_receptacle or the
amount it can contain.

(Abstract from the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
c
Box I. A case or receptacle, usu. Rectangular or cylindrical and with
a lid, of wood, metal, card, etc.

(Abstract from Collins Dictionary of the English Language)

Packet I. A small or medium-sized container of cardboard paper, etc. D
often together with its contents,

2. a packet of biscuits

3. a small package; parcel
E
Carton I. A cardboard box for containing goods;

2. a container of waxed paper or plastic in which liquids, such as
milk, are sold

Container I. An object used for or capable of holding, esp., for transport or F
storage, such as a carton; box etc.

2. a large cargo-carrying standard-sized container that can be loaded
from one mode of a transport to another

3. a container port; G
4. a container ship.'' .

Further, meaning of the word 'container' used in Tariff Item 17 was
considered by this Court in G. Claridge & Company ltd. v. Collector of
Central Excise, (IC,~ I) 52 ELT 34 I. In that case, question was-whether egg H
I
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) I S.C.R.

A trays and other similar products manufactured by the appellant can be regarded
as 'containers' under the relevant entries in the Central Excise Tariff. The 'f·
Court considered the expression 'containers' defined in the dictionaries and
glossaries of packaging Tenns:

"Container: One that contains; a receptacle or flexible covering
B for shipment of goods."

(Abstract from Webster's new Collegiate Dictionary, 1975)

"Container: (i) that which contains (ii) that in which goods are
enclosed for transport."
c (Abstract from Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary)

"Container - Any receptacle which holds, restrains or encloses
any article or commodity or articles or articles or commodities to be
stored or transported.''

D (Abstract from Indian Standard Glossary of tenns: LS. 4261-1967)

"Container. (I) In general, any receptacle or enclosure used.in
packaging and shipping. (2) Relatively large, reusable enclosures to,
be filed with smaller packages and discrete objects, to consolidate
shipments and allow transport on railway flat cars, flatbed trailers,
E aircraft, in ships' holds or as deckloads. etc. (See CARGO
TRANSPORTER : CONTAINERIZA TION).(3) Any receptacle for
holding a product."

(Abstract from Glossary of packaging Tenns (USA)

F " Container: A large box/or intermodal transport, contammg
many smaller boxes of different shapes and sizes as well as individual
articles.''

(Abstract from Glossary of Packaging terms (Australia)

G Thereafter, the Court held thus:-

"9. The above definitions would show that the expression 'container'
is used in three different sense: in a broad sense, it means a receptacle
which contains: in a narrower sense, it means a receptacle in whicfl ·
articles are covered or enclosed and transported: and in a more
H limited sense, it means enclosures used in shipping or railtmy for
C.C.E. •·. l.T.C. LTD. (M.B. SHAH. J.) 941
transport of goods. If used in a broad sense, 'container' would include A
a tray because it is a receptacle which contains articles and, therefore,

- an egg tray would be a 'container'. But an egg tray would not be a
•container· in a narro\ver sense because articles placed in it are not
covered or enclosed and they cannot be transported as such. It is,
therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the expression 'container' B
in Item 17 of the old Tariffand Heading 48.18 of the new Tariff has
been used in the broad sense to include all receptacles or in a narrower
sense to mean those receptacles in which the articles are covered or
enclosed and transported. For this purpose, the context in which the
word'container · has been used in these entries has to be examined.
In Item 17 of the old tariff. the word 'containers' is preceded by the C
words 'boxes, cartons, bags and other packing' and in Heading 48.18
of the new Tariff, the word 'containers' is preceded by the words
'cartons, boxes' and is followed by the words 'and cases'. It is a
we/I-accepted canon ofstatutory construction that when two or more
words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled
together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. It is D
based on the principle that words takes as it were their colour from
each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous
to a less general. [See: Dr. Devendra M. Surli v. State of Gujarat,
(1969) I SCR 235 at p. 240. Considering the expression 'containers'
in the context in which it is used in the relevant tariff item, we are E
of the opinion that the said expression has to be construed to mean
'packing containers' ll'hich are analogous to boxes and cartons, that
is, an enclosed receptacle which can be used for storage and
transportation of articles. Egg trays being receptacles which are not
covered or enclosed cannot be used for transportation of articles and,
therefore, they cannot be regarded as 'containers' under the above F
mentioned entries in the E.xcise Tariff."

As stated above, the phrase 'other packing container' would not be a
box .. carton or bag and the same is used to cover packing articles which are
not boxes, cartons or bags. Applying the test laid down in the aforesaid
judgment, the said phrase is to be understood in context of previous words G
and on the basis of well accepted canons of statutory construction that when
· tWo or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled
together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense and the more
general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. Normally,
'container' would mean a receptacle or a flexible covering for shipment of H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 I S.C.R.

A goods. As such 'packing containers' are analogous to boxes and cartons, that
is, an enclosed receptacle which can be used for storage and transportation
of articles. That means, 'container' would contain smaller boxes inside and
thereafter goods will be transported and would normally be reusable. Cigarette
packets are not used for transporting and there is no question of reusing the
B same. In this context, cigarette packet would be a small box.

This interpretation would be in conformity with the Central Excise
Rules (Rules 71, 72, 74 and 93 referred to hereinafter).

However, learned senior counsel Mr. Ganesh referred to the said Rules
to contP.nd to the contrary. He submitted that under Rule 93 the Department
C itself considers the cigarette packets as 'packets' and not as 'boxes' and in
sharp contrast Rule specifically refers to boxes/booklets in respect of matches
in Rules 71, 72 11nd 74. For considering this contention, we would refer to
the Rules 71, 72 and 74, which are as under:-

"'Rule 71. Method of Packing.-(!) No packet or case containing
D
boxes or booklets of matches other than those intended for export out
of India shalJ be closed and reckoned as a unit unless a Central
Excise Stamps of the appropriate class has been affixed to each box
or booklet in the manner laid in rule 70.

E (2) Each case or packet shall contain only an integral number,
whether one or more than one, of gross of boxes or booklets of
r matches. The boxes or booklets in each case or packet shall contain
the same number of matches on the average and shall, except where
the matches are exempted from bearing Central Excise Stamps, ·bear
Central Excise Stamps of the same class.
F
(3) Every packet, box or booklet, or the manufacturer's label
affixed thereto shall bear in clearly discernible characters, the name
of the factory or a distinguishing mark, which may take the form of
a special design whereby th: origin of the matches can be traced.
Specimens of all such labels shall be submitted to the Collector for
G his approval and record, before they are brought into use:

Provided that the Collector may by an order· in writing and subject ~-
to such limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by him in the
order relax the provisions of this sub-rule.

H (4) On each case or packet of matches shall be legibly marked in
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. [M.B. SHAH, J.] 943
ink or oil colour a progressive number, commencing with No. I for A
each year and in different series for each class of matches, the number
of gross of boxes or booklets contained in each case of packet and the
grade of Central Excise. Stamps affixed thereto.

(5) Every box or booklet of matches, other than matches of the
types known as Bengal Lights, issued for home consumption, shall B
have on the box or booklet, or on the manufacturer's label affixed
thereto, a statement in clearly discernible character, of the retail price
at which the manufacturer intends that the box or booklet should be
sold:

Provided that the Collector may by an order in writing and subject C
to such limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by him in the
o"rder relax the provisions of this sub-rule.

' ). Rule 72. Examination by proper officer at the factory.-lf the proper
officer is in doubt whether Central Excise Stamps have been affixed
or whether boxes or booklets contain the proper number of matches D
or whethers cases of packets contain proper number of boxes or
booklets, he may require the licensee to open the case, packet, boxes
or booklets for examination and in the event of any discrepancy, he
may detain the goods.

Rule 74. Disposal of matches examined under rule 72 or 73 and of E
Central Excise Stamps damaged during examination.-{I) If any
Central Excise Stamps are torn during examination under rule 72, or
rule 73, the proper officer may order that the containers to which
they are affixed shall be returned to the licensee for re-stamping and
- shall be replaced immediately by an equal number of boxes or booklets
of the same class from the finished stock.
F

(2) If examination under rule 72 or rule 73 shows that Central
Excise ·Stamps of insufficient value have been affixed, the proper
officer may order the boxes or booklets in question to be returned to
th,e factory, where the Central Excise Stamps shall be removed and G
replaced by others of the proper value.

Referring to the Rules 71, 72 and 74 as they are, it is apparent that
the word 'packet' is used in a sense of larger box/ container which
contains boxes or booklet of match boxes. As such, these Rules indicate
that packet is in the nature of box which contains number of match H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A boxes. Further. this aspect is made clear in Rule 93(d) (2) which·
specifically provides that each packet containing cigarettes consists
of wooden, tin or cardboard box opening only at the top of or of a
paper wrapper top completely closed on all sides. So cigarette packet
in this case would be a part of the box which may be wooden, tin or
cardboard box or of a paper wrapper. Relevant part of Rule 93 provides
B as under:-

"Rule 93. Manufacture and disposal of excisable tobacco products.-
No excisable tobacco products shall be delivered from any factor
except under the following conditions:-
c (a) . Such products shall be made into separate packets.

(b)

(c)

(d) No cigars and cheroots mentioned in Heading No.24.02 of the
D
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) shall
be delivered from any factory unless-

(I) they are put into packets containing 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100
cigars or cheroots, as the case may be;
E (2) ·each such packet consists ofa wooden, tin or cardboard box
opening only at the top or of a paper wrapper top completely
closed on all sides and with all sides and with all outer edges
gummed down."

F As stated in the Rule, a cigarette packet may contain 5, 10, 25. 50 or
more cigarettes. That cig~rette packet would be packet into a wooden, tin or
cardboard box opening only at the top.

The learned counsel also referred to the decision rendered by this Court
in Collector of Central Excise v. Punjab Anand lamps Industries, (1989} 43
G EL T 816 and contended that it was required to be decided whether such
packets were commercially known and marketable as packets, boxes or
containers? He submitted that the dictionary meaning of the word 'box' is
not required to be resorted to in the present case because cigarette packet is
not commercially known in the market as 'box' or 'carton' and as such is not
marketable as commodity. In that case, the Court considered whether bulb
H sleeves and tube sleeves manufactured by Punjab Anand Lamps and used for
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. [M.B. SHAH. J.] 945
packing the electric bulbs and tubes were excisable items and whether they A
were printed boxes/printed cartons? In that context tlie Court observed thus:-

"4. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. It is evident that one
of the meanings, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,
Vol. I, which the Tribunal had referred, is that box is ·a case of a
receptacle usually having a lid' and in view of the purpose for which B
this is used in the transaction, the Tribunal found that drums of sleeves
manufactured by the respondent could not be called a 'box' or a
'carton' because the box must have a lid. The Tribunal noted that
sleeves by themselves could not contain anything because these are
open ended from both sides.
c
5. In order to consider the question whether the exemption notification
was applicable or not in view of the terms of the notification, it is
' .>- necessary to find out whether these sleeves bulbs or sleeves or tube
light sleeves manufactured for the purpose of packing the electric
bulbs and tubes are printed box and cartons. In our opinion, the D
Tribunal approach the question from the literal meaning as well as
the functional use of the expressions employed. As these sleeves and
tube sleeves manufactured by the respondent had no independent
market as such, and as these were utilised for capti\'e consu111ption
for the end-product manufactured by the respondent. in our opinion,
in the absence of any positive and reliable evidence that there was E
either a market for these goods manufactured by the respondent and
in that market these bulb sleeves and tube sleeves are known and
marketable as corrugated boxes and cartons, a fact of which in the
record, there is no positive evidence either way, in our opinion, the

--
Tribunal proceeded on a correct basis. We have considered the F
submissions advanced on behalf of the revenue. But we have not
been able to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that Tribunal
committed any error either on the principle of law to be applicable
or the appreciation of the facts in this case."

In the above case also, meaning of the 'box' as given by the Shorter G
Oxford English Dictionary was referred to and thereafter it was held that bulb
sleeves or tube sleeves had no independent market and were utilised for
captive consumption for the end-product. In the present case, it is to be
> understood that in context, cigarette packet cannot be termed as 'container'
as discussed above but it can be considered as small packet or a box containing
cigarettes. H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A With regard to marketability, it is to be stated that the decision in Asia
Tobacco Co. ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) 58 ELT 418 (Madras) upon
which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel, itself would -./
indicate that cigarette packets are marketable. In that case, what was marketed
and purchased was outer shell of cigarette packet for keeping in cigarettes
but it was held not to be a container. Similarly, in Zupiter Printery and Anr.
B v. Union of India etc., ( 1991) 34 ECR 7 (Delhi), petitioner was manufacturing
cigarette 'outer shells' of printed sheets supplied to it by Mis Godfrey Philips
India Ltd., a manufacturer of cigarettes. There are other matters revealing ~
that such packets or parts thereof are manufactured as per the order and are
sold. This leaves no doubt that ·such packets are manufactured and are
c marketable.

Further, for considering the meaning of the word 'box' or the 'container',
we have referred to the interpretation of the word 'container' as given by this
Court in G. Clardige & Co's case (supra). In that case also, the Court has
referred to the· dictionary meaning of the word •container'. In any case, for
D interpreting the meaning of the word used in tariff entries or taxing statute,
the law is-trade meaning would be applicable if a particular product
description occurs by itself in tariff entry and there is no conflict between the
tariff entry arui any other entry requiring to re~oncile and harmonise that
tariff entry with any other entry. This is made clear in Akbar Badrudin
E Giwani v. Collector of Customs. Bombay, [1990) 2 SCC 203 wherein this
Court held thus- ·

"36 ....... There is no doubt that the general principle of interpretation
of tariff entries occurring in a text (sic tax) statute is of a
commercial nomenclature and understanding between persons in
the trade but it is also a settled legal position that the said doctrine
F
of commercial nomenclature or trade understanding should be
departed from in a case where the statutory content in which the
tariff entry appears, requires such a departure. In other words, in
cases where the application of commercial meaning or trade
nomenclature. runs counter to the statutory context in which the
G said word was ·used then the said principle of interpretation should
not be applied. Trade meaning or commercial nomenclature would
be applicable if a particular product description occurs by itself
in a tariff entry and there is no conflict between the tariff entry, · ')(
and any other entry requiring to reconcile and harmonise that
tariff entry with any other entry.
H
J

C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. [M.B. SHAH, J.] 947
40. It may be pointed out that this Court has clearly and unequivocally A
laid down it is not permissible but in fact it is absolutely necessary
to depart from the trade meaning or commercial nomenclature
test where the trade or commercial meaning does not fit into the
scheme of the commercial statements. This Court referring to the
observation of Pollock. B. in Grenfell v. Inland Revenue B
Commissioner, ( 1876) I Ex D 242 observed:
'' that if a statute contains language which is capable of
being construed in a popular sense such statute is not to
be construed according to the strict or technical meaning
of the language contained in it, but is to be construed in C
its popular sense, meaning of course, by the words
'popular sense', that sense which people conversant with
the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would
' ). attribute to it." But " if a word in its popular sense and
read in an ordinary way is capable of two constructions.
It is wise to adopt such a construction as is based on the D
assumption that Parliament merely intended to give so
much power as was necessary for carrying out the objects
of the Act and not to give any unnecessary powers. In
other words, the construction or the words is to be
adapted to the fitness of the matter of the statute."
E
From the aforesaid discussion. It is clear that for interpreting tariff
entries trade meaning as well as dictionary meaning is also required to be
considered to reconcile and harmonise the tariff entry. In the present case,
meaning of the word 'box' for the purpose of interpreting the tariff item
would be-a case or receptacle usually rectangular or cylindrical and with a
lid of wooden, metal, card etc. Hence, the description of 'cigarette packet' F
would fit in the meaning of the word 'box' as it is a receptacle with a lid with
a protective case or a covering for cigarettes. Further, the meaning of the
word 'container' in context of the tariff item would be (I) that contains a
receptacle or flexible covering for shipments or transport of goods; (2) it will
be relatively large, reusable enclosure filed with s111aller packages; and (3) it G
may contain number of boxes. But, it should not by itself box, carton or bag.
Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that cigarette packet is 'other packing.
container.'.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision rendered by
the Madras High Court in Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. (supra) and submitted H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS P003l I S.C.R.

A that cigarette packet was held not to be a printed box or a printed carton. but
it was a container or an article made of paper and submitted that the said
decision is accepted by the Department since 1991. In the said decision, the
learned Single Judge considered as to whether the cigarette packets are covered
under Item No. 17 of the First Schedule and are liable for duty and whether
B the same is exempted from duty in view of the Notification No. 66182 datec!.
28.2.1982'? The Court considered the exemption notification along with
clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 7.4.1982
regarding classification of the printed cigarette packet shells wherein it has
been stated as follows:-

c "The matter has been examined and the Board is of the view that
these printed shells are in the nature of printed boxes (slide type of
boxes) and are accordingly classifiable under Item 17(4); they would
not be eligible for the exemption granted under Notification No. 66/
82- C.E. The Board is also of the view that if the inner slides are
manufactured and cleared along with outer slides, duty would be
D chargeable on the value of the outer shell and the inner slide. However,
if the shells are cleared from a factory on payment of duty under
Tariff Item 17(4) and if the inner slides are inserted into these shells,
along with cigarettes in the cigarette factory, no further duty liability
would be attracted under Tariff Item 17(4). "
E The Court thereafter referred to the following part of the affidavit filed
on behalf of the Department:-

"With regard to the 12th paragraph of the affidavit. I submit that
the cigarette packet is known only as a packet and not as a box in the
Trade parlance."
F
The Court thereafter relied upon the decision in Punjab Anand Lamps ·~-
Industries (supra) and observed thus:-

" ......... In view of the ratio laid down in the above decision and
in view of the fact that there is absolutely nothing to show that the
G shells and slides that would come to the carton and that packet or
packing container is only a packet of cigarette therein and it cannot
be said that the said items are also liable for duty and are not entitled
to exemption as per the Notification. Ii is not in dispute that prior to
the introduction of Tariff Item 17(4) by the Finance Bill of 1982, the .
H outer shells and inner slides were classified under Tariff Item 68 and
C.C.E. v. l.T.C. LTD. [M.B. SHAH, J.] 949
they were exempted from the whole of the duty. Even while A
con~idering the process of packing of cigarettes, it is seen that the
packet is completed only after cigarettes have been put in it. Cigarettes
are put first in the binding paper under then placed in the slide. The
slide along with the cigarettes is then inserted into the outer shell.
The packet of cigarettes is thus completed at a stage when cigarettes
are already in it. It is not in dispute that at this stage of assembly, it B
is not only the packet which is assembled but a packet of cigarettes
containing cigarettes therein. Thus if this assembly is to be treated as
manufacture, the manufacture is not of a packet but of a cigarette
packet containing cigarettes. Thus a cigarette packet cannot be
subjected to duty twice over. Even otherwise it is submitted that the C
outer shells and inner slides cannot be subjected to any separate
assessment. Whatever it maybe, there is absolutely nothing to show
• .r that the outer shells are to be called thus as packets and liable to
excise duty .... ''

It is difficult to understand the aforesaid reasoning. Cigarette packet D
without cigarette is a different article. Excise duty is levied on cigarettes as
well as the packet containing cigarettes. Secondly, in the case of Punjab
Anand lamps Industries (Supra). This Court held that the judgment rendered
. l
by the Tribunal does not call for interference because the Tribunal arrived at
the conclusion that bulb sleeves. and tube sleeves which were used to pack
the electric bulbs and tubes were not boxes or cartons as the said items were E
utilized for captive consumption for the end product manufactured by the
Company and that it has no independent market. Further, it was found that
sleeves were not having a lid and, therefore, it could not be called a box or
a carton. In the present case, the situation is different.
F
Learned counsel further referred to the decision rendered by the High
- ..,-""
Court of Delhi in Zupiter Printery 's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner-
Company was manufacturing cigarette outer shells of printed sheets supplied
to it by Mis Godfrey Philips India Limited, a manufacturer of cigarettes.
Petitioner was charging the said Company conversion charges only, i.e.,
converting the printed sheets into outer shells. The Court considered that G
outer shell by itself cannot function either as a box or container because outer
shell by itself cannot hold the cigarettes and the other important component
for a racket is the insertion of slide which makes it a container or a box.
Dealing with the facts of the case, the Court observed thus:-

"14. We had the privilege to see this outer shell. i.e. the product H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS P003] I S.C.R.

A of the petitioner. It is open from both sides. Without the slide it
cannot hold or contain cigarettes. It is only when slide is insured that
it becomes complete and can be called a box or container but without
slide it is neither. Broad description of the shell does not fit in the
expression of box or container.

B After considering the decision in G. Clardige & Co. 's case (supra), the
Court held thus:-

" ....... Considering the expression 'containers' in the context in
which it is used, the said expression has to be construed to mean
'packing containers' which analogous to boxes and cartons, that is,
c an enclosed receptacle which can be used for storage and transportation
of articles. The shell, i.e. the product of the petitioner, is open from
both the sides. In the absence of the slide this shell by itself will not
be in a position to hold the cigarettes. It is only when the slide is
inserted inside the shell that it can be called a "box" or "container"
D but without slide it is neither. Broad description of the shell does not
fit in the expression of box or container."

From the aforesaid two decisions, it is apparent that a cigarette packet
containing shell and the slide covering all sides would be a box. Further,
there is no question of double taxation because excise duty on cigarettes is
E separately levied and in regard to packet containing cigarettes, duty is to be
levied on the basis of tariff item 17.

In the result, appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Tribunal is set aside and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of
Central Excise are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
F
S.K.S. Appeals allowed: -·