M/S. SHARP INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

C.A. No.-005242-005242 - 2000Supreme Court26 September 20054 pages
For Respondent: P. PARMESWARAN
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the product, due to the predominance of plastic and being coated on both sides, did not qualify as merely 'backed' aluminum foil. Therefore, it should be classified under Chapter 39 (plastics) and not Chapter 76 (aluminum).

What were the facts?

The appellant manufactured a product consisting of aluminum foil coated on both sides with plastic. The dispute was whether this product should be classified under Tariff Heading 76.07 (aluminum foil) or 39.20 (plastics). Test reports indicated that plastic predominated the product by weight.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct classification of a composite product made of aluminum foil and plastic. Specifically, whether it falls under aluminum foil headings or plastic headings based on its composition and construction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Tariff Heading 76.07, Tariff Heading 39.20

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5242 of 2000 PETITIONER: M/s Sharp Industries Ltd. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2005 BENCH: S. N. Variava & Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J.

This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 11th July, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT).

Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The Appellants manufacture a product which consists of aluminum foil, whose thickness does not exceed 0.2 mm, which is then covered on one side with a polyester film and on the other side with polyethylene.

The Appellants also manufacture pouches out of the same material.

The question for consideration is as to whether these products are classifiable under Tariff Heading 76.07 and 76.12, as claimed by the Appellants, or under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 and 39.23.90, as claimed by the Respondent. All the authorities below, including the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment, have held against the Appellants. The Commissi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →