1998 (8) TMI 546 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Classification of glass screen under item 39 of notification dated 20th May, 1976 or as an unclassified item.

Analysis:
1. Controversy: The main issue in this case is whether the glass screen manufactured by the company falls under item 39 of the notification dated 20th May, 1976 or should be treated as an unclassified item.

2. Applicant's Argument: The applicant argues that the glass screen is an unclassified item and does not fall under entry 39, citing previous Supreme Court decisions regarding classification of glass mirrors.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contends that the glass screens fall under the category of "All goods and wares made of glass" and should be classified accordingly. They argue that the toughening process transforms the glass sheets into a new product.

4. Legal Provisions: The relevant entries from the Central Excises and Salt Act and the notification dated May 20, 1976 are examined to determine the classification of the glass screens.

5. Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court's previous decision in a similar case involving glass mirrors is referenced, where it was held that the screens cannot be classified as "glass or glassware" but rather as motor vehicle parts.

6. Judicial Analysis: The judge refers to the Supreme Court's decision and concludes that the glass screens are more akin to glass-panes and should be excluded from item 39. The judge aligns with the Supreme Court's view that the screens are a new product and fall under the unclassified category.

7. Tribunal's Error: The judge criticizes the Tribunal for making a distinction between the pre and post-1976 notification, stating that the categories of glassware remain the same. The judge sets aside the Tribunal's decision and allows the revision, taxing the toughened glass sheets as an unclassified item.

8. Conclusion: The judge allows the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and ruling that the toughened glass sheets are to be taxed as an unclassified item. No costs are awarded in this case.