2004(12)LCX0003

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)

L.E. INDUSTRIES

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (AC), MUMBAI

Order No. A/1447/2004-WZB/C-III, dated 17-12-2004 in Appeal No. C/843-R/99-Mum.

Cases Quoted

Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Collector — 1998(06)LCX0139 Eq 1998 (102) ELT 0717 (Tribunal) — Relied on......... [Para 8]

Collector v. Glass Fibers & Allied Industries — 1997(11)LCX0116 Eq 1998 (097) ELT 0363 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 4]

Advocated By :        None, for the Appellant.

R.K. Chandan, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of small pieces of Glass Rings imported by the appellant to be used in manufacture of miniature bulbs. Whereas the appellant has claimed the classification under Heading 8546.10 of the Customs Tariff as Electrical Insulators, the authorities below have held that the goods are properly classifiable under Heading 7020.00, as articles of glass.

2. The appellant has made prayer to decide the matter on the basis of the records. Accordingly, we have heard Shri R.K. Chandan, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue.

3. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Asst. Commissioner of Customs has held that the glass rings imported by the appellant have to undergo further process of manufacture before they function as electrical insulator. Heading 85.46 of the Customs Tariff covers electrical insulators and to qualify under the said heading, the goods should be capable of being identified as insulators and capable of being used as such. The goods have to undergo the process of firing in the furnace with the electric wires and they become insulators only thereafter. Merely because glass by its very characteristic is a bad character of electricity, this fact will not ipso facto make the glass rings as insulators.

4. For the above he has relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Glass Fibers and Allied Industries reported in 1997(11)LCX0116 Eq 1998 (097) ELT 0363 (Tri.) it was held that the glass fabrics impregnated/ laminated, which were being cut by a simple operation before the same were used as insulating fitting, were not classifiable as insulators. Accordingly he held that the goods imported by the appellant are properly classifiable under Heading 7020 of the Customs Tariff as article of glass and not as electrical insulation under Heading 85.46 of the Customs Tariff.

5. On an appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same by observing as under :-

“I have carefully gone through the records of the case and heard the appellant. Reference to Rule 2(a) of General Rules for interpretation of Tariff by the appellant, in my view, is misplaced. Glass by its very nature is a bad conductor of electricity and that is why it is used for making electrical insulator. The essential characteristic in Rule 2(a) refers to use of application and not to property of a material. In the subject case the property of being a bad conductor is intrinsic property of the glass and not of the impugned goods. The impugned glass rings do not have any special shape or design rendering them suitable only as an insulator and unfit for other uses. If the argument advanced by the appellant, is accepted, copper/aluminium ingots have to be classified as electrical conductors since even before undergoing process for manufacture, these have essential characteristic to act as conductor. The fact, therefore, in the present case remains that the impugned goods, as presented, were not capable of being used as insulator.”

6. After going through the impugned orders we find that admittedly the goods at the time of the importation are in the shape of glass rings. The said rings are subsequently fitted in the miniature bulbs. A pair of connecting wire are placed inside the ring and then the entire items is put into furnace. The rings melts and gets converted into a solid mass, which also hold the wire at a distance and works as insulator since it insulates the two electrical wires through which current is fed to bulb’s filament. It also supports the two wires inside the bulbs.

7. From the above it is clear that the glass rings are not usable as electrical insulators in the conditions in which they are imported. To become insulators they have to undergo further processing as detailed above. We do not agree with the appellant’s contention that the said process is only for the purpose of fitting glass rings on the wires by application of heat. There is nothing on record in the shape of Manufacturers Literature to show that the glass rings are considered as insulators in the shape in which they are imported. The authorities below have rightly observed that the mere fact that glass possesses characteristic of being bad conductor of electricity is not sufficient to hold the same as insulator inasmuch as in that case other glass article would also be capable of being held as insulator and classifiable under heading 85.46. Similarly we do not find any merits in the appellants contention that in terms of provisions of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for Interpretation of Tariff the goods would be classifiable under Heading 85.46 inasmuch as they did not have any special shape or design rendering them suitable only as an insulator and unfit for other uses.

8. It has been correctly observed that at the most the said glass rings can be held to be raw material for manufacture of insulators but not insulators themselves. There is no dispute that the goods have to be assessed in the form presented at the time of assessment. Inasmuch the imported goods were nothing but glass ring, they have been correctly held as articles of glass. The Tribunal in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1998(06)LCX0139 Eq 1998 (102) ELT 0717 (Tri.) has held that Lead Glass Tubings imported in running length requiring further processing in importer’s factory to make glass necks have to be considered as raw material at the time of import.

9. In view of our above foregoing discussion, we do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.

Equivalent 2005 (180) ELT 409 (Tri. - Mumbai)