1984 (4) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of tableware as "terracotta" or "glazed clayware" under Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
2. Interpretation of the term "terracotta" as used in the Tariff Schedule.
3. Applicability of the exclusion of "terracotta" from the scope of Item 23B.
4. Consideration of commercial understanding and evidence regarding the term "terracotta."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Tableware:
The primary issue is whether the tableware (cups, saucers, plates, etc.) manufactured by the respondents should be classified as "terracotta" or "glazed clayware" under Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods as "glazed clayware" under Item 23B, while the Collector (Appeals) classified them under Item 68 as "terracotta."

2. Interpretation of the Term "Terracotta":
The controversy revolves around the interpretation of the term "terracotta" as used in the Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector and the Department argued that "terracotta" refers to unglazed, ornamental articles of archaeological and aesthetic value, not utility goods or tableware. Various definitions from standard dictionaries and encyclopedias were presented to support this interpretation, emphasizing that "terracotta" is typically unglazed and used for decorative purposes.

3. Applicability of the Exclusion of "Terracotta":
The respondents argued that even if the tableware is glazed, it should still be classified as "terracotta" and thus excluded from Item 23B. The Collector (Appeals) supported this view, stating that "terracotta" includes utility articles made from ordinary clay mixed with brick powder, and the goods in question fit this description. However, the Tribunal found that the term "terracotta" in the Tariff Schedule refers to a class of articles distinct from "wares" of China, porcelain, and glazed clay, and does not include glazed tableware.

4. Consideration of Commercial Understanding and Evidence:
The respondents provided invoices and correspondence showing that their goods were marketed and known as "terracotta." However, the Tribunal found that these documents, being recent and arising during the pendency of the proceedings, did not have high evidentiary value. The Tribunal emphasized that the name given by a manufacturer to a product cannot override the established meaning of a term in authoritative references.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the term "terracotta" as used in the Tariff Schedule refers to ornamental articles, building materials, and crude, unglazed utility articles, not glazed tableware. Therefore, the tableware manufactured by the respondents was correctly classified as "glazed clayware" under Item 23B. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was set aside, and the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed.