1999 (1) TMI 112 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Notification 76/86-C.E. as "enamelware" for exemption eligibility.

Analysis:
The case involved the interception of a tempo carrying reflectors claimed to be "enamelware" by the appellants under Notification 76/86-C.E. The goods were seized under suspicion of being liable to duty as industrial products made to consumer specifications. The appellants filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, which allowed them to clear the goods without duty payment. However, the Collector of Central Excise classified the products as reflectors, exhaust silencers, and signboards, denying them exemption under Notification 76/86.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that "enamelware" was not defined in the Tariff or the Notification. Referring to various dictionaries, it was noted that "enamelware" generally refers to enameled kitchenware or articles of merchandise. Precedents from similar cases were cited where goods made to specific orders were not considered "enamelware." The Tribunal determined that since the products in question were industrial goods made to specific purchaser specifications, they did not qualify as "enamelware" eligible for exemption under Notification 76/86.

Based on the above analysis and legal interpretations, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's classification and rejected the appeal, concluding that the products were not "enamelware" as per the definition required for exemption under Notification 76/86.