2003 (2) TMI 70 - SC - Central Excise

Whether grinding and polishing of Opthalmic Blanks into Glass Moulds amounts to manufacture? Whether the goods are known in the market as Glass Moulds? Whether the goods should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 84.80 or under Chapter 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff? Held that - It would be difficult to hold that glass-moulds in question are moulds for glass. It is apparent that Chapter 84 covers machinery and mechanical apparatus and certain non-mechanical apparatus e.g. steam generating boilers and their auxiliary apparatus and filtering apparatus. Further, the Chapter excludes ceramic articles and parts thereof, laboratory glassware, machinery and appliances and parts thereof, of glass, that means even if a machine or mechanical appliance is covered by a heading of Chapter 84 by its description or nature, the item is not to be classified therein if it has the character of an article of ceramic material or of glass. Further, heading 84.80 covers moulds used by hand or in machines for moulding certain materials like moulds for glass, moulds for mineral materials and moulds for rubber or plastics. The product in question 'glass mould' is not for moulding such articles of glass. Moulds for glass include - moulds for glass paving stones, bricks or flags, compression moulds for glass tiles, bottle moulds for hand or machine working, moulds for hollow glassware and for insulators, shaping moulds for glassmakers lathes and moulds made of steel or cast iron used to make lens or spectacle blanks.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether grinding and polishing of Ophthalmic Blanks into Glass Moulds amounts to manufacture?
2. Whether the goods are known in the market as Glass Moulds?
3. Whether the goods should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 84.80 or under Chapter 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether grinding and polishing of Ophthalmic Blanks into Glass Moulds amounts to manufacture?

The Tribunal concluded that the product resulting from grinding and polishing is completely different from the raw material, namely, the ophthalmic blanks. The ground and polished material acquires different characteristics and properties, and a new product distinct in name, character, and use comes into existence after the process of grinding and polishing. Thus, the process of grinding and polishing is considered a process of manufacture.

2. Whether the goods are known in the market as Glass Moulds?

The Tribunal found that the appellant described the product as Glass Moulds and that it was internationally known as Glass Moulds. The product was recognized in common/trade parlance as glass moulds. The Tribunal held that the test is whether the product is capable of being bought and sold in the market or is marketable, relying on the decision in A.P. State Electricity Board v. CCE.

3. Whether the goods should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 84.80 or under Chapter 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff?

The Tribunal observed that the goods were known in the international market as glass moulds, and the appellants, who were the manufacturers, also called the product glass moulds. Even at the time of import, the product was declared as 'glass moulds.' The Tribunal held that the product was known as 'glass moulds or moulds made of glass.'

Regarding classification, the Tribunal pointed out that the Department viewed the goods as articles for technical use, with plastic gaskets being parts thereof, and therefore not classifiable under Chapter 84 but appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 70.15. The Tribunal held that the moulds in dispute were glass moulds as known internationally and nationally in trade/commercial parlance. They were not moulds for making plastic articles and, in terms of the Explanatory Notes of HSN, were appropriately classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 70.15.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1411 of 1995 and Civil Appeal No. 7086 of 1999 filed by the appellant. Civil Appeal Nos. 2366-67 of 2001 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai were allowed, and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. Civil Appeal No. 4384 of 2001 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad was dismissed as nothing was pointed out to show how the impugned judgment and order was erroneous. There was no order as to costs in all the appeals.