TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. 2. Since the show-cause notice related to four orders-in-appeal, four appeals with the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad as appellant and Messrs. Pennar Ceramic and General Industries as respondents , and bearing Nos. ED(SB)(T)13/74D ED(SB)(T)18/7^D to 20/74D were registered for being dealt with as if they were appeals filed before the Tribunal by the Collector. In this order we are dealing with the above four appeals. 3.The appeals were partly heard on 22-11-1983, and the hearing was completed on 15-12-1983. 4. The appeals relate to the classification under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule of Intalox saddles , Rasching rings and unglazed balls manufactured by the respondents. These were held by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore, to be classifiable under Item 23B(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as Chinaware and porcelainware, all sorts, not otherwise specified . The respondents filed appeals to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. That authority held that the goods in question fell outside the scope of Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff and were, therefore, non-dutiab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed goods also. 7. Shri Tayal referred to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saurabh Potteries and Ceramics, Indore, v. Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi repored in 1979 E.L.T. (J29). The judgment in that case was specifically with reference to Rasching rings. It had been held that though these articles might be unglazed, it did not matter, for the test of glaze applied only to tiles and to Chinaware and not to porcelainware. It had accordingly been held that Rasching rings were rightly classifiable under Item 23B(4). 8. Shri Tayal also referred to the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Others, reported in 1979 E.L.T. J36. In that case, it was held that H.R.C. Cartridge fuselinks were not classifiable under Item 23B, since they were not porcelainware . Although, prima facie, this judgment appeared to be against the stand of the Department, Shri Tayal argued that it was actually in his favour. The High Court had held that porcelain normally contains. China clay, quartz and feldspar as main elements. However, the variation in the proportions of each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case could also be distinguished from the case which was the subject matter of the order of the Government of India, since the material facts, namely the compositon of the goods, were clearly different. 11. For the respondents, Shri Subramanian submitted that the goods were a very inferior type of clayware and not ceramicware. He referred to the report of the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues, regarding the goods. In that report it has been stated that the samples were in the form of dull white pieces having rough surfaces and that when written on by ink, the ink markings could not be easily rubbed off, showing that the samples were not glazed. Clearly, therefore, these goods were unglazed and they were also in the nature of clayware. Shri Subramanian also argued that even admitting that porcelainware had water absorption of below 3 per cent according to the ISI, it did not follow that all clayware which had less than 3 per cent water absorption was necessarily porcelainware. Shri Subramanian stated that the goods in question were used as tower packings in the process of manufacture of goods by the chemical or allied industries. They were not articles sold to the ordinary consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, had since been closed down, and they had started in another factory in Haryana. According to him, the goods manufactured by this factory were similar in all material respects to the goods manufactured by their earlier factory, and these goods were now being classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, namely, as All other goods N.E.S. and not under Item 25B. We asked Shri Tayal whether he had any submissions to make on this point. Shri Tayal stated that he had no information in this regard and therefore no submissions to make. 17. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides. A number of judgments and orders have been brought to our notice which have a more or less direct bearing on the issue before us. Thus, the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in 1979 E.L.T. 29, referred to in para 7 above, is with specific reference to Rasching rings, and holds them to be classifiable under Item 23B(4). Although prima facie, this would appear to clinch the matter, we find that the arguments in that case turned mainly on the question that the goods were not glazed. The High Court had pointed out that with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to in para 10 above. 19. An equally strong ground against holding these goods to be covered by Item 23B is the difficulty in considering them as porcelainware . As already observed in para 17 above, words such as glassware and porcelainware carry a particular connotation. This has been clearly brought out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, reported in 1981 E.L.T. 325 (S.C.). That judgment related to a case under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the question was whether hypodermic clinical syringes could be considered as glassware falling under Entry 39 of the First Schedule to the above Act. The Supreme Court observed that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise tax Acts or Sales-tax Acts, which classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms of expressions used, but their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The Supreme Court then went on to make the following observations which are of great relevance to the present case:- Having regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey could be purchased only from dealers in motor parts. The High Court found it to be established that windscreens could be purchased only from dealers in motor parts. They also noted the statement of the learned Counsel for the Department that if he walked into glass or glassware shop he could not purchase an automobile windscreen. The High Court, therefore, concluded that in commercial parlance a windscreen is an entirely different commercial commodity identified independently from glass or glassware. 20. From the judgments cited above, it would be seen that the Supreme Court had held that although the dictionary meaning of the expression glassware is articles made of glass , in the commercial sense glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes and like which have specialised significance and utility, nor does a general merchant dealing in glassware ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes. These consideration are, in our view, equally applicable to the term porcelainware . It is clear that the articles under consideration, namely, Rasching rings, intolax saddles and balls unglazed are articles of specialised nature, used as part of the equipmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
