9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes. He submits that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes. He submits that the Tribunal in their own case i.e. Mridul Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 279 (Tribunal) held that Glass Mosaic Tiles are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 23A of erstwhile Tariff as Glass and Glassware. He submits that the Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the case of M/s. Empire Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Bombay, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 572. He submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in their own case was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against decision of the Tribunal in the case M/s. Empire Industries Limited was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. A-103. He also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal). H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the desired shape of a tile was produced by bonding the glass powder and making a compact. The compacted mass is sintered at a temperature below the melting point of glass, resulting in the formation of the glass mosaic tiles. He, further submits that the appellant also marketing the goods as Glass mosaic tiles. He, further submits that the case law relied upon by the appellant is not applicable in the present case as under the Old Tariff, there was specific entry covering the Mosaic tiles. Therefore, in this situation the Hon ble Tribunal held that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not covered under Item No.23A of the Old Tariff as Glass and Glassware. 8. He also submits that the Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff covers the articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or Similar Materials. The appellants are manufacturing the Glass Mosaic Tiles from Glass Powder. Therefore, these tiles cannot be called articles of Stones, Plaster, etc. He, further submits Tariff Sub-heading 70.15 specifically covers other articles of glass and word includes in the entry clears the doubt in respect of the articles of glass for Table, kitchen, office and Indoor decorations. The readi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials as covers under the Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Hence the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00. 14. Chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff covers Glass and Glassware and Sub-heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff reads as under :- Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes. The contention of the appellant is that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not the articles of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decorations. Hence these are not covered under this Sub-heading. 15. We find that the Sub-heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff covers other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decorations or similar purposes. The word including was interpreted by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.S., Bombay v. Afsons Industrial Corporation, reported in 1990 (78) S.T.C. 385. The Hon ble High Court held that the normal function of the word including in an entry, to our mind, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion before us involved in this appeal is whether mosaic tiles made of glass falls under TH 70.15 described as follows in the schedule to CETA, 1985 :- Heading Sub-heading Description of goods 70.15 7015.00 Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading No. 70.07). or 68.07 6807.00 All other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials not elsewhere specified or included. Lower authorities have classified the goods under TH 70.15 whereas the appellants are claiming classification under TH 68.07. 20. Appellants claim is based on the legislative history and judicial decisions relating to classification of the said product, whereas the lower authorities have relied on the Explanatory Notes to HSN under Chapter 70. Appellants , contention rebutting the finding of the lower authorities is that Chapter 70 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985 is not aligned with HSN and therefore, sub-headings in and Explanatory Notes to, HSN under Chapter 70 are irrelevant for determining classific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advocate that Revenue s appeal against Tribunal s judgment in Empire Industries has been dismissed by Apex Court as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. A 103-104. 22. Next judgment relied upon by the appellant s learned advocate is in their own case reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 279 (Tribunal) [Mridul Enterprises v. CCE]. Now, the controversy was between TI 23A and 23D as aforesaid. The Tribunal held the product as classifiable under TI 23D pertaining to Mosaic Tiles , relying on the decision in Empire Industries, (supra). 23. Another judgment relied upon by Shri Chandrasekharan is in the case of Shon Ceramics (P) Ltd v. CCE reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 608. Controversy in that case was classification of Ceramic mosaic tiles - whether under TI 23B or 23D as aforesaid. The Tribunal while holding that the product was porcelainware held that it was classifiable as mosaic tiles under Item 23D because these were commercially known as mosaic tiles and fitted the description of TI 23D more specifically. It relied on Mridul Enterprises (supra). 24. All the aforesaid decisions related to the old tariff no doubt, submits the learned advocate fairly, but the decision in Empire Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecoration or similar purposes (other than that heading No. 70.07 or 70.13) . Elaborating this submission, learned advocate submits that while the effect of other articles of glass alone may be very wide and would have normally included the articles succeeding the word including , but spelling out those articles as being included in the expression other articles of glass , meaning of the said words other articles of glass is narrower than what it would normally convey. It is well-known that the word including is used to cover the articles succeeding the said word within the expressions preceding the said word including , although such succeeding articles would not have been covered in normal course. Result is that the widest meaning which can be given to the expression other articles of glass would be the specific articles stated after the word including and no more or at the most articles resembling or similar to such specified articles. In other words, the word including would acquire the effect of the word means or namely . For this proposition learned advocate relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to glass and glassware under the old tariff as it existed before 1-3-1986. The judgment after discussing the character of the product from several angles i.e. its usage, its availability in the market, affidavits of architects and dealers came to the conclusion that it does not fall under the TI 23A. The said item was as wide in scope on it plain terms, as the Chapter 70 in present tariff schedule is. Any glass and glassware was covered within the scope of TI 23A. Yet the product was held to be outside its scope. Ratio of the said judgment would apply with full force even to the present tariff. As rightly, pointed out by the learned advocate, Tribunal s judgment in Empire Industries was without any influence from TI 23D pertaining to Mosaic Tiles because that item was just not in existence in the tariff during the period under consideration before the Bench. 30. Nature of the product would not change simply because that decision has been rendered under the old tariff and new tariff has come into existence. Appellants reliance on BPL Pharmaceuticals (supra) for this proposition is very apt. 31. Lower authorities have placed great emphasis on the product s specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation of the tariff, put it under sub-heading 6807. We agree with this approach. There is no escape from it. At first sight, it looks odd to club glass mosaic tiles with all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included . We note that Chapters 68 to 70 fall under the same Section XIII of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, articles of these three chapters have greater affinity to each other than with articles in other sections of the tariff. Similar was the position in the old tariff. Goods under TIs 23 to 23D of this group together one after another, as set out earlier. Taking all these factors into consideration, product glass mosaic tiles are rightly classifiable under TSH 6807.00 and the benefit of Notification 50/86-CE would be available to the product. 34. I agree with the learned Brother on this point that demand of duty in excess of Rs. 4,47,647.00 as mentioned in the show cause notice is liable to be set aside. This finding is, however only of academic interest in view of my finding above. 35. In short, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as and when required by the context. 39. The goods in question were manufactured by bonding glass powder into a compact. The compacted mass, shaped as tiles, was sintered at a temperature below the melting point of glass, which resulted in glass mosaic tiles . Should these goods be classified under Tariff Sub-Heading 6807.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as - All other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included. or should they be classified under Tariff Sub-Heading 7015.00 of the said Schedule as - Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading No. 70.07 or 70.13) ? 40. The very same product had been involved in the classification dispute in the appellants own case viz. Mridul Enterprises v. C.C.E. [l998 (37) E.L.T 279 (T)], wherein the Tribunal had held the goods to be classifiable as mosaic tiles under Old Tariff Item 23D and not as glass and glassware under Item 23-A. While there is no entry in the New Tariff corresponding to the above Item 23D of the Old Tariff, Chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echni-Glass Limited (supra), has a strong bearing on the classification of the appellants product. Going by the process of manufacture of glass mosaic tiles , one may rightly say that the product is made from glass. It would be incorrect to say that it is made of glass. Only articles made of glass can be rightly called glassware . According to Collin s Dictionary of the English Language, glassware means articles made of glass . The very same meaning is given for the word in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edition Volume I. Therefore, glass mosaic tiles are not glassware or articles of glass. It follows that it would not be correct to classify such tiles as other articles of glass...... under Tariff Sub-Heading 7015.00. 44. The learned Departmental Representatives submitted that glass mosaic tiles were most akin to glass and therefore could be classified only under appropriate Heading in Chapter 70 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 according to Rule 4 of the Interpretation Rules. He, however, could not establish as to why a classification of the product was not possible under Rules 1 to 3 of the Interpretation Rules, nor could he explain why the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of heading No. 70.10 or 70.18) 70.16 70.16 Paving Blocks, Slabs, Bricks, Squares, Tiles and other articles of pressed or moulded glass, whether or not wired, of a kind used for building or construction purposes; glass cubes and other glass smallwares, whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative purposes; leaded lights and the like, multicellular or foam glass in blocks, panels, plates, shells or similar forms. Paving blocks, slabs, bricks, squares, tiles and other articles of pressed or moulded glass, whether or not wired, of a kind used for building of construction purposes; glass cubes and other glass smallwares, whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative purposes; leaded lights and the like; multi-cellular or foam glass in blocks, panels, plates, shells, or similar forms. 70.20 70.20 Other articles of glass. Other articles of glass. 46. After pointing out the fact that the Customs Tariff headings in Chapter 70 were very well aligned with the HSN headings in Chapter 70, the learned Advocate had drawn my attention to the legislative intent behind the non-enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69. One would find that the product viz. glass mosaic tiles has not been specified or included under any of the Headings of Chapter 69 or under Headings 68.01 to 68.06 of Chapter 68. Coming to the residuary Heading 68.07, one can see that the articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, and mica mentioned thereunder are essentially building materials. The appellants glass mosaic tiles are also, undisputedly, likewise. In the market, these are all available with dealers of building materials. Going by their chemical composition, one would find that asbestos and mica are basically silicates, and so is glass (the material from which the product in question is made). Therefore, in my view, the product can legitimately be considered to fall within the ambit of the expression similar materials in the description of the goods under Tariff Heading 68.07. I would, therefore, concur with the conclusion reached by the learned Vice President that the appellants product is rightly classifiable under Tariff Heading 68.07 and consequently the benefit of Notification No. 50/86-CE will be available to the product. 49. The point of difference placed before me is answered as above. 50. Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
