1997 (2) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty liability on laminated safety glass of varying thickness; Applicability of Circular No. 13/94 issued by CBEC to determine nominal thickness for duty calculation.

In this case, the appellants were engaged in manufacturing laminated safety glass of different thickness falling under sub-heading 7004.80 of the CETA, 1985. The dispute arose when the department contended that duty should be paid on the actual thickness of the glass, i.e., 6.3 mm to 6.4 mm, rather than the declared 6.0 mm thickness. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty, leading to a differential duty demand. The authorities rejected the appellant's argument, citing a Circular dated 22-1-1985, which the appellants claimed was not applicable to laminated safety glass.

The appellant's counsel argued that Circular No. 13/94, issued by CBEC in 1994, should be applied retroactively to determine the nominal thickness of laminated safety glass for duty calculation. The counsel pointed out that previous orders had accepted the Circular's applicability to periods before its issuance, setting a precedent for such interpretation. The appellant contended that since the laminated safety glass fell within the thickness range covered by the Circular (6.0 mm to 6.8 mm), the nominal thickness should be considered as 6.00 mm, relieving them of any additional duty liability.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that Circular No. 13/94 clearly specified that laminated safety glass within the range of 6.0 mm to 6.8 mm should be treated as having a nominal thickness of 6.00 mm for duty calculation purposes. As the appellants had paid duty based on 6.0 mm thickness, the Tribunal held that no further duty was payable by them. Consequently, the differential duty demand was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.