1988 (7) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of glass tiles under Central Excise Tariff - Applicability of Tariff Item 23-D (Mosaic Tiles) vs. Tariff Item 23-A (Glass and Glassware).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of glass tiles manufactured by the appellant. The appellant contends that the goods should be classified under Tariff Item 23-D as "Mosaic Tiles," while the Assistant Collector classified them under Tariff Item 23-A as "glass and glassware." The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector's classification, stating that since Tariff Item 23-D was made inapplicable, the goods should automatically be classified under Tariff Item 23-A.

2. Arguments by Appellant:
The appellant, represented by Shri Daya Sagar, argued that the glass mosaic tiles are correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 23-D based on the process of manufacture, trade parlance, and commercial understanding of mosaic tiles. They emphasized that the tiles are known as mosaic tiles in the common parlance and provided evidence from various sources to support their claim. Additionally, they cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the common parlance test for classification.

3. Precedent and Trade Parlance:
The appellant relied on a previous decision by the Tribunal in a similar case where glass tiles were not classified as glass or glassware but as building materials based on trade parlance. They also cited a Bombay High Court decision supporting the classification of products made from glass powder under a different category than glass and glassware.

4. Uni-colour Tiles as Mosaic Tiles:
The lower authorities contended that uni-colour tiles manufactured by the appellants could not be classified as mosaic tiles unless set in a specific pattern. However, the Tribunal observed references in a book describing both uni-colour and design tiles as mosaic tiles, indicating that the uni-colour tiles could indeed be classified as mosaic tiles.

5. Commercial Usage and Trade Parlance:
The appellant argued that the glass mosaic tiles are used as building materials and not as glassware, supported by evidence showing their availability with building material dealers. The trade parlance and commercial understanding of mosaic tiles were crucial in determining the correct classification, as highlighted by the explanation under Tariff Item 23-D.

6. Judgment and Conclusion:
After considering the arguments, evidence, trade parlance, and previous decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. They held that the glass tiles were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 23-D as mosaic tiles, overturning the lower authorities' classification under Tariff Item 23-A. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to deviate from the precedent set in a similar case and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of glass tiles under the Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing the importance of trade parlance, commercial understanding, and previous decisions in determining the correct classification of goods.