2001 (4) TMI 311 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of headlight covers made of glass used in automobiles under CET sub-heading 7011.90 or 90.01.

Analysis:
1. The appeals revolve around the classification of headlight covers made of glass used in automobiles. The Revenue contends that the covers should be classified under CET sub-heading 7011.90 as "optical elements of glass, not optically worked," while the assessees argue for classification under CET sub-heading 90.01 as "other optical elements of any material," claiming that the covers have been optically worked. The manufacturing process involves pouring molten glass into dies, pressing, annealing, grinding, and polishing with Barium Oxide. The Assistant Commissioner observed the process at Om Glass Works and noted that the covers are convex, hemispherical, or flat with grooves on the concave side. The process does not meet the criteria for optical working as defined in the HSN Explanatory Notes, as only the edges are ground for smoothing, not the transmission surfaces required for optical working.

2. Certificates issued by various entities were relied upon to support the classification under Chapter 90. However, these certificates were found to be factually incorrect or inconsistent with the actual manufacturing process. The Development Officer certified optical properties in the covers, but the process described did not align with optical working. Similarly, reports from the Centre for Improvement of Glass Industry and a Glass Consultant mentioned grinding and polishing of the entire surface, contrary to the admitted process of only grinding the edges. The National Physical Laboratory's letter did not conclusively determine optical working, leading to the conclusion that the headlight covers were not optically worked.

3. The Tribunal held that the headlight covers were not optically worked and therefore not classifiable under Chapter 90. The classification under Chapter Heading 70.11 as claimed by the Revenue was deemed appropriate based on the HSN Explanatory Notes. The objections raised in the cross-objections regarding the scope of remand proceedings and reliance on CBEC Circular were dismissed. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the examination of manufacturing processes, and the reliance on certificates to determine the classification of headlight covers made of glass used in automobiles.