1995 (3) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of laminated safety windshield glass.
2. Applicability of previous judicial decisions.
3. Interpretation of tariff headings and sub-headings.
4. Relevance of product use in classification.
5. Applicability of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Laminated Safety Windshield Glass:
The primary issue was whether the laminated safety windshield glass should be classified under sub-heading No. 7004.20 as laminated safety glass or under sub-heading No. 8708.00 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The appellant argued for classification under sub-heading No. 7004.20, while the Revenue classified it under sub-heading No. 8708.00.

2. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions:
The appellant referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Atul Glass Industries Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 (S.C.), and the Bombay High Court's decision in Maharashtra Safety Glass Works Pvt. Limited, Pune v. Union of India, 1982 (10) E.L.T. 237 (Bom.), arguing that these decisions were rendered under the old Central Excise Tariff and that the new tariff should be considered with its interpretative rules, explanatory Section notes, and Chapter notes.

The respondent countered by asserting the applicability of the Atul Glass Industries Limited decision, emphasizing that the nature of goods does not change with a change in tariff. The Tribunal's decision in Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Limited v. C.C.E., 1989 (44) E.L.T. 775 (Tribunal) was cited to support this view.

3. Interpretation of Tariff Headings and Sub-Headings:
The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process of laminated safety glass, noting that it involves combining layers of plastic and flat glass. The product has various uses, including in motor vehicles, military tanks, aircraft, and high-security platforms. The Tribunal emphasized that the new Central Excise Tariff's coverage is broader than the old tariff, and the classification should be based on the new tariff's interpretative rules and notes.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Forge and Press Industries Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.), which held that the process of manufacture and end-use are not necessarily determinative of product classification under a fiscal schedule like the Central Excise Tariff.

4. Relevance of Product Use in Classification:
The Tribunal noted that the primary function and utility of the laminated safety windshield glass in motor vehicles is for safety. However, it emphasized that the character of the product does not depend on its use, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Limited v. State of Haryana, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1607 (S.C.), which stated that the use of a product does not determine its classification.

5. Applicability of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN):
The Tribunal referred to the explanatory notes to the HSN, noting that laminated safety glass of size and shape suitable for incorporation in vehicles is classifiable under Heading No. 70.07, which aligns with Heading No. 70.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. It was explained that the heading does not distinguish between unshaped and shaped glass, and laminated safety glass used in motor vehicles should be classified under sub-heading No. 7004.20.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the laminated safety windshield glass manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading No. 7004.20 of the Tariff. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →