9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.00 of the Tariff. 3.The matter was posted for hearing on 24-11-1994, when Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri K.K. Jha, S.D.R. represented the respondent. 4. Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate stated that under the New Central Excise Tariff, the goods under consideration were correctly classifiable as Laminated Safety Glass, under sub-heading No. 7004.20 of the Tariff. While he agreed that the goods under consideration had only one use in the motor vehicles, he submitted that the `use was not a criteria for classification under sub-heading No. 7004.20. He added that some minor working had to be done with regard to the Wind Screen Glass before it is incorporated in the vehicle. In this connection, he referred to the affidavit of the Commercial Manager of the appellant company. He pleaded that the goods should be classified as Laminated Safety Glass. He referred to the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Atul Glass Industries Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 (S.C.), and the Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Maharashtra Safety Glass Works Pvt. Limited, Pune v. Union of India, 1982 (10) E.L.T. 237 (Bom.) = 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for various purposes - in motor vehicles, military tanks, air crafts, banks, for high security platforms, enclosures etc. By law enforcement agencies, it is being used for various security purposes. In the case before us, a part of the production of the laminated safety glass was cleared as such, while a part of the production of such laminated safety glass was cleared in the curved form and in special shape and sizes for use in the motor vehicles. In the classification list, effective from 2-3-1992, the assessees had declared their product as laminated safety glass 5 mm to 25 mm thick. In the show cause notice dated 2-1-1992, it had been mentioned that the assessees were engaged in the manufacture of laminated safety wind shield glass, and laminated safety glass, falling under sub-heading No. 8708.00 and sub-heading No. 7004.20 of the Tariff, respectively. The goods under consideration were supplied to TELCO Ltd., Automobile Corporation, Coach Builders, vehicle factory etc. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8708.00 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector of the Central Excise, Rohtak who had adjudicated the matter, hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hape or size of the laminated safety glass does not appear to be relevant for classification under sub-heading No. 7004.20. The laminated safety glass has many uses, and is a highly useful product. The appellant supplied the laminated sheets in the required shape, size and with curvature for specific use in a particular motor vehicle, to the manufacturers, traders or users, for use in motor vehicles as wind shields. In a motor vehicle, it is used for its transparency, strength and safety. 10. In the case of Collector, Central Excise v. Fuse Base Eltoto Limited 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) the Hon ble Supreme Court in para 7 of their judgment have this to say :- The identity of an article is associated with its primary function and utility. The names of certain products have functional association in the mind of the customers. There is a mental association in the mind of the customer in respect of certain products keeping in view the utility of the product and also the reputation the name of the product has acquired in the market and among the consumers. When the passenger sits in the vehicle, his concept of the wind shield is one of safety. Its primary function and utility is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, collars and so on. This is done by a process of forging, welding, hammering and so on applied to the longer tubes but basically the items remain the same and the use also remains the same. The tariff entry calls for no distinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets, rods, bars, plates or billets and those turned out from larger pipes and tubes. In these circumstances it is difficult to say that pipe fittings, though they may have a distinctive name or badge of identification in the market, are not pipes and tubes. It is true that all pipes and tubes cannot be described as pipe fittings. But it would not be correct to say that pipe fittings are not pipes and tubes. They are only a species of pipes and tubes. The use of the words all sorts" and the reference to the various processes by which the excisable item could be manufactured set out in the tariff entry are comprehensive enough to sweep within their fold the goods presently under consideration." 11. As will be noted from the extracts of the Tariff entries with regard to glass and glass-ware as appearing in the old Central Excise Tariff, and as appearing now in the present Tariff, coverage under the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles. The case was not argued on the basis of the Tariff presently in force. In the case of Good Year India Limited v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 S.C. 781 (para 23) the Hon ble Supreme Court had ruled that a case cannot be precedented for a preposition not argued. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case of Atul Glass Industries Limited and Others had held that the glass mirrors could not be classified as `other glass and glass ware set forth in Tariff Item No. 23A(4), and fall under the residuary Item No. 68 (Para 12). Under the present Tariff, glass mirrors are specifically included under Heading No. 70.06 of Chapter 70 relating to Glass and Glass ware. In the new Central Excise Tariff introduced under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the Central Excise Tariff Items have been made comprehensive in accordance with the international trade practice with a view to reduce disputes on account of tariff classification. The tariff has been made more detailed and comprehensive thus obviating the need for having a residuary tariff item. Goods of the same class have been grouped together to enable parity in treatment (refer statement of objects and reasons while introducing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR SCW 1782]. Since the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, the Central Excise Tariff had undergone a change. Now there is a specific entry for laminated safety glass, and for interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff there are rules of interpretation, Section notes, chapter notes with explanations, illustrations, inclusions, exclusions etc., built in the Tariff itself. While it could be argued that the changes in the tariff may not be changing the character and nature of the goods, it is also true that to find the appropriate classification, description employed in the tariff nomenclature should be appreciated having regard to the terms of the headings, read with the relevant provisions on statutory rules of interpretation put up thereon. (refer para 3 of the Supreme Court s decision in the case of M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited and Others v. C.C.E. (supra). 13. In the case of Meteor Satellite Limited v. C.C.E. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 697 (T), the Tribunal after noting that the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is aligned to the harmonised commodity description and coding system (HSN), had observed that a reference to the explanatory notes to HSN will be appropriate as an aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian Tool Manufacturers v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) in para 13 of their judgment if there is a general heading for the purpose of levy of excise duty then every variety of goods falling under that general heading will have to be taxed under that heading. The fact that a particular variety is known by a particular name in the market, will not take it out of the general heading . With regard to the classification of the product `throw away inserts , the Supreme Court observed that to decide the question whether throw away inserts are tool tips, nature and function of inserts will have to be examined. The form or size of the inserts are quite immaterial for this purpose. 15. In the case of Kwality Sales Corporation, Ludhiana v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 137 (T), the Tribunal, with reference to Axle Stud which were used in the motor vehicles, had held that as they were specifically mentioned in the explanation below Item No. 52, they were classifiable under Item No. 52, notwithstanding its use in motor vehicles for fastening purposes. Para 16 of that order is extracted below :- 16. The fact that the studs are used in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
