1999 (8) TMI 418 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of a product described as "glaze frit" under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of a product known as "glaze frit" under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. The respondent filed a Classification List claiming the product's classification under this sub-heading, while the Department argued it should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10 as Glass Frit. The Department relied on the tariff entry under Chapter Heading 32.07 and the HSN Notes to support their position.

2. Arguments by Department:
The Department contended that the product was glass frit, specifically mentioned in the tariff against Chapter sub-heading 3207.10. They emphasized the specificity of Chapter sub-heading 3207.10 for glass frit, contrasting it with the residual nature of sub-heading 3207.90. The HSN Notes were also cited to bolster the argument that glass frits are explicitly mentioned, further supporting their classification stance.

3. Contentions by Respondent:
The respondent argued that the product was not glass frit but glazed frit, thus warranting classification under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. They referenced Indian Standard Glossaries to define terms like Frit, Fritted Glaze, and Glaze to differentiate between glass frit and glazed frit. The respondent also highlighted a Trade Notice from the Rajkot Collectorate classifying Frit Ceramic Glaze under sub-heading 3207.90.

4. Judgment and Analysis:
After considering the arguments, evidence, and cross objections, the Tribunal found that the product was more appropriately classified as Ceramic Glazed Frit under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. The Tribunal noted the absence of the term "Frit Glass" in the relevant glossaries and emphasized the process of manufacture, supporting the conclusion that the product was not glass frit. Additionally, the Trade Notice from the Rajkot Collectorate further reinforced the classification under sub-heading 3207.90. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner and rejected the appeal, along with disposing of the Cross Objections accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment settled the classification dispute by determining that the product in question, described as "glaze frit," should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 as Ceramic Glazed Frit, based on the evidence, glossaries, and relevant trade notices presented during the proceedings.