TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 68. The present appeal and the cross-objection relate only to the first-mentioned three products held to be classifiable under Item 23A(4) by the Collector (Appeals). In respect of glass mirrors, there is a separate appeal filed by the Department and the same is not the subject-matter of the present proceedings. 3. Even in respect of the three products held by the Collector (Appeals) to be classifiable under Item 23A(4), the appellants stated before us in categorical terms that their appeal was restricted to- (i) fully finished glass windscreens, both of toughened and laminated variety, which were ready for fitment to motor vehicle ; and (ii) insulating glass units/panels having aluminium tubular frame/encasement and in which a dessicant had been injected into. The appellants made it clear that besides the above two disputed items, they were manufacturing certain sundry items of laminated and safety glass such as table tops, peep holes for boilers, glass parts of refrigerators etc. and that they accepted the Collector (Appeals) order for classification of these sundry glass items under Item 23A(4). 4. Out of the two disputed items, consideration of classification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansport Ltd. (1983 E.L.T. 2067) in which, in the context of the amended Item 34A, it was held that hub, bolts and nuts were assessable to duty as bolts and nuts under Item 52 and not as unspecified parts of motor vehicles under Item 68. In passing this order, the Bench had not given any weight to the fact that hub, bolts and nuts were stocked and sold by auto. parts dealers and not by hardware merchants. The Bench had not given any weight to this fact in their order on frit glass (1983 E.L.T. 1249) also and classified frit glass as Other glass under Item 23A(4) on the ground that by definition it was glass. He pleaded that the same analogy should hold good for wind-screen also. (2) No doubt, windscreens were cut to particular shape and size and had holes drilled in their body for fitment to motor vehicles. No doubt also that their glass had acquired improved qualities of toughness and vision in the course of manufacture. But, inspite of these features, windscreens were still basically glass only. He stated that the British Standards Specification (BS 857-1967) as well as the Indian Standards Specification (IS : 1382-1961) both dealt with toughened safety glass and laminated sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-1-1980 based on the Board s Tariff Advice No. 60/79, dated 18-12-1979 which in turn was based on the tariff amendments of 1979. They also stressed the point that the CCCN classified windscreens as motor vehicle parts under heading 87.06 and not as glass and glassware and the Bombay High Court had also taken note of this fact in their judgment. Though the revised scheme of the Indian Trade Classification treated windscreens differently, the introductory note to this scheme made it clear beyond doubt that it was intended solely for the purpose of collection of trade statistics and that it was not binding on the Customs authorities. Regarding the sale invoices issued in the name of M/s. Sehgal Glass Works, they stated that this firm was a wholesale dealer in windscreens, besides other glass items. Regarding the invoices issued to a sugar factory and a manufacturer of refrigerators, they stated that the items supplied to these parties were not windscreens but sundry items of safety glass and laminated glass like peep-hole covers for boilers, frig. parts etc. and that the appellants had already made it clear that they were not contesting the order of the Collector (Appeals) in regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable both in respect of Sales Tax and Central Excise duty. Analogy sought to be drawn by the Department s Representative with the bolts and nuts case of M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Company decided by this Bench earlier is not apt. In that case the description of Item 52 ( Bolts, nuts and screws... ) was specific by name for the goods involved, viz., hub, bolts and nuts. It was in this context that the question whether the goods were sold by hardware merchants or by auto parts dealers was not given any weight. Analogous situation could exist in the present case if Item 23A(4) contained a specific entry Windscreens but that is not so. The ratio of M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Company case is, therefore, not applicable to the present case. No doubt, there is no stipulation as to any particular use in Item 23A(4), but the fact is that the Bombay High Court judgment as well as the earlier decision of this Bench in Trutuff case are not based on use of windscreens but on the nature and character of that article and how it is commercially understood. Lastly, we fail to see how Item 23A(4) would be rendered nugatory if windscreens are classified under Item 68, as contended by the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
