1998(04)LCX0075
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)
SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD.
Versus
COLLR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD
Final Order No. E/362/98-D, dated 22-4-1998 in Appeal No. E/3662/90-D
CASE CITED
Collector v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. — 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Para 6]
Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.
Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - The appellants, M/s. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. had prayed for decision on merits.
2. The matter relates to the classification of the wired glass under the new Central Excise Tariff in force from 28-2-1996 (sic). The appellants had claimed that the wired glass was not excisable. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad after discussing the relevant Tariff Entries had held that the wired glass was covered by the Heading No. 70.02 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. We have carefully considered the matter and have gone through the submissions made by Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, who is present for the respondent/Revenue.
4. The wired glass is a type of glass. Under Chapter Note 5 under Chapter 70 of the Tariff, it had been explained that the expression `glass’ includes fused quartz and other fused silica. In Chapter Note 2, it had been explained that for the purposes of Heading No. 70.02.
“(a) Glass is not regarded as `Worked’ by reason of any process it has undergone before annealing;
(b) Cutting to shape does not affect the classification of glass in sheets;
(c) The expression `absorbent or reflecting layer’ means microscopically thin coating of metal or of a chemical compound (e.g. metal oxide) which absorbs, for example, infra-red light or improves the reflecting qualities of the glass while still allowing it to retain a degree of transparency or translucency."
5. Heading No. 70.02 of the Tariff covered the following :-
“Cast Glass & Rolled Glass, in sheets or profiles, Drawn Glass, Blown Glass, Float Glass, and surface ground or polished glass in sheets, whether or not having an absorbent or reflecting layer, but not otherwise worked”.
6. The new Central Excise Tariff which was brought into force w.e.f. 28-2-96 (sic) was largely based on the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature popularly known as Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) while coming to a decision that the wired glass was classifiable under Heading No. 70.02 of the Tariff relied upon the HSN. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. - 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.) = 1995 (057) ECR 0417 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that any dispute relating to Tariff classification has to be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN and not in accordance with the definition of a term in ISI Glossary. Para 18 from that decision is extracted below :-
“18. We are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into the error of overlooking the fact that the structure of the Central Excise Tariff is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN and, therefore, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression ”similar laminated wood" in the same context of classification of block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must, as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention."
7. As regards the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court referred to by the appellants, we agree with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the decision was rendered with reference to the old Central Excise Tariff and the issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the wired glass was a sheet glass or not. We consider that after the Tariff have undergone a change and the Tariff relating to the glass and glass wire had been recast based on the HSN, judgments rendered under the old Central Excise Tariff would not be applicable for the classification under the new Tariff.
8. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
______
Equivalent 1998 (102) ELT 173 (Tribunal)
Equivalent 1998 (027) RLT 0489