9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are essentially in the category of laboratory glassware. These two categories of glassware, it is pointed out, are basically distinct even in the matter of the nature of the product. Ordinary glassware, it is stated, is made from a mixture of soda and lime. It is affected by weather and after sometime, it tends to lose its specific shape. Laboratory glassware, on the other hand is reportedly made of Lead, Jena and Borosilicate glass and the process of manufacture includes annealing and passing through ageing process which makes the product weather and fault proof and keeps it in shape and accuracy for years. It is claimed that Soft Capillary Glass Tubing and Bulb Glass Tubing imported by the appellants fall in this second category of laboratory glassware. 4. It is submitted that the Soft Capillary Glass Tubings are meant for clinical thermometers. These tubes are worked, and given an oval prismatic shape and a very fine uniform single bore (half of the human hair diameter) with one side enamelled. These tubes cannot be used for any other purpose. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that I.S.I, has placed Soft Capillary and Bulb Glass Tubings for thermometers i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. ' (8) 1982 E.L.T. 605-A - Ganga Glass Works (P) Ltd. (G.O.I.). (9) Supreme Court Order in Civil Appeal No. 3435 of 1984 of M/s. Atul Glass Company (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise dated 10-7-1986. (10) C.E.G.A.T. Order No. 211/85-D dated the 24th June, 1985 in the case of M/s. Jintan Clinical Thermometers Co. (India) Private Limited, Surendra Nagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. 10. Responding, Shri K.C. Sachar, the learned Departmental Representative has stated that the appellants have no case at all for classification of their goods as laboratory glassware as they are even invoiced as tubings. It is emphasized that these are sealed on both ends and, in fact, are only parts of thermometers and cannot be used in the laboratory for any other purpose, it is further emphasized that clinical thermometers themselves cannot be considered as an item of laboratory glassware. It is submitted that since capillary tubing as such is not a finished product, no claim can be made that it is laboratory glassware. As regards the claim of time bar, it is stated that there is no indication as to the date when the duty was actually paid. Therefore, no comments are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , were classified as 'glass and glassware' in Chapter 70 of the B.T.N. The Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to show that the Central Excises and Salt Act was modelled on the B.T.N. Furthermore, it was stated that the argument that glass mirrors had been classified by the Indian Standards Institution as 'glass & glassware' in the glossary of term prepared by it furnished a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has been treated for the purpose of specifications laid down by the Indian Standards Institution. It was held that it could be treated only as a supportive-material of the expert opinion furnished by way of evidence as in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1963 Supp. 1 SCR 586). It was opined that there may be more tangible considerations which weighed with the Court in reaching its conclusions. Dealing with the impugned products, the Supreme Court held that it Is clear that as a result of the process of manufacture, the original glass-sheet undegoes a complete transformation when it emerges as a glass mirror. The evolved product is completely different from the original, glass-sheet. It was observed as under : "What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re (iii) glass shells, glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern; and (iv) other glassware including table-ware. In the case of M/s. Jintan Clinical Thermometers Co. (India) Private Limited (supra), the imports were made in October, 1980. At that time, as a result of the Budget of 1979, a change had come in the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 23, which was amended to have the following four sub-items : (i) flat glass, including sheet glass, wired glass and rolled glass whether in the form of plate glass, figured glass or in any other form; (ii) laboratory glassware; (iii) glass shells, glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern; and (iv) other glass and glassware including table-ware. In the case of Jintan Glass Works, with reference to the post 1979 Tariff, this Tribunal had held that capillary glass tubings for clinical thermometers would fall under the description of 'other glass' in Tariff Item 23A(4). In a decision in the present matter, we have to reckon with two facts; one is that in the pre-1979 Tariff, there was no entry in Item 23A(4) relating to 'other glass' and also we have since received the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Atul Glass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods in question have been described as glass tube for the manufacture of laboratory thermometers corrected to glass thermometers. This is in one case. In another case, they are described as parts of clinical thermometers. In both cases, the goods are invoiced as for capillary glass tubings. It cannot be said that the description either in the Bills of Entry or in the invoices would show that the glass tubings in question are known in the trade as laboratory ware. 19. Appellants have referred to the British Standards Institution London, the German Standards Committee and Corning of USA publications, which deal with thermometers and glass tubes meant for such thermometers. We have seen the literature on record. This would show that capillary tubing is being manufactured by major manufacturers of laboratory glass ware, but once again from the fact that capillary tubing is manufactured by manufacturers of laboratory glassware, it does not follow that capillary tubing should classify as laboratory glassware. 20. We have carefully considered the case law cited by the appellants in their favour. In the case of Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions in the cases of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (supra), Kusum Products v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (supra) do not help the appellants. 23. The appellants have cited the judgment in the case of Nivedita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1985 (20) E.L.T. 382 in which it was held that while BTN Explanatory Notes may have persuasive force in classification matters, it cannot be engrafted for all purposes into the Customs Tariff Act. Again, in the case of EMCO Transformers Limited, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra), it was held that Explanatory Notes to CCCN can be considered to be only of persuasive value. The ratio of both these judgments are accepted by us but as would be observed from our discussions, these also do not help the appellant's case. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plea of the appellants for classification of the impugned goods under Item 23A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff as laboratory glassware is rejected. 25. We find that the department has classified the goods under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff as "other glassware including table ware". We have, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
