1985 (12) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Intalox saddles," "Rasching rings," and "unglazed balls" under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
2. Interpretation of the term "porcelainware" and its applicability to the goods in question.
3. Applicability of previous judgments and definitions to the classification of the goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "Intalox saddles," "Rasching rings," and "unglazed balls" under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule:
The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of "Intalox saddles," "Rasching rings," and "unglazed balls" manufactured by the respondents. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore, classified these goods under Item 23B(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as "Chinaware and porcelainware, all sorts, not otherwise specified." However, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, held that the goods fell outside the scope of Item 23B and were non-dutiable. The Central Government issued a show-cause notice to revise these orders, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings.

2. Interpretation of the term "porcelainware" and its applicability to the goods in question:
Shri K.D. Tayal, representing the appellant Collector, argued that the goods were unglazed porcelainware and thus covered by Item 23B. He cited definitions from ASTM and the Indian Standards Institution, which include unglazed ceramic articles under porcelain. He also referred to judgments from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Madras High Court to support his argument that the goods should be classified under Item 23B.

Shri P.S. Subramanian, representing the respondents, countered that the goods were a very inferior type of clayware and not ceramicware. He referred to the Chief Chemist's report, which described the goods as dull white with rough surfaces, indicating they were unglazed and in the nature of clayware. He argued that the goods lacked the essential qualities of porcelain, such as fine texture, translucency, and imperviousness to dye penetration.

3. Applicability of previous judgments and definitions to the classification of the goods:
The Tribunal considered various judgments and definitions to determine the classification of the goods. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saurabh Potteries and Ceramics held that Rasching rings were classifiable under Item 23B(4), but the Tribunal noted that the judgment did not discuss the actual composition of the goods or whether they could be considered "porcelainware."

The Madras High Court in the case of English Electric Co. held that H.R.C. Cartridge fuselinks were not classifiable under Item 23B, as they were not "porcelainware." The Tribunal found this judgment relevant as it emphasized the importance of the composition of porcelain and the commercial understanding of "porcelainware."

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Indo International Industries, which held that the commercial sense of terms like "glassware" should be considered over their dictionary meanings. Applying this principle, the Tribunal concluded that the goods in question, used as part of chemical and allied industries' equipment, could not be considered "porcelainware" in the commercial sense.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found considerable force in the respondents' argument that the goods could not be considered as made of porcelain, given their dull white appearance and rough surfaces. Even if the goods were made of porcelain, they could not be considered "porcelainware" in the commercial sense, as they were specialized articles used in chemical industries and not items one would buy from a porcelainware shop. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's orders and rejected the four appeals of the Department.

← Previous Next →