9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a bowl and is thus not covered under Notification No. 67/88, dated 1-3-1988. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the Appellants filed a Classification List and claimed that the item Rectangular Casserole falling under sub-heading 7015.00 is chargeable to duty at a concessional rate in terms of Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 67/88, dated 1-3-1988. The Assistant Collector, after examining the items, observed that the product in question served the purpose of baking and serving both; that they are cooking vessels as well as tableware and that since the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88 is admissible to tablewa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is tableware notwithstanding the fact that it is used at times for baking food in oven which is commonly understood as bakeware and serves the purpose of tableware. It was also argued that under Notification No. 67/88, the words `Tableware of glass' are introductory words and the enumerated articles which come after that word, namely constitute the essential part of the said notification; that their product is used for serving food; that casserole is meant for only serving food and, therefore, it was tableware; that even if the product was used both for baking and serving, the predominent use of the product is as tableware; that the appellant had relied upon the technical literature and affidavits filed. It was also argued that the ld. Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods do not cease to be tableware and indeed the advantage they have of being 'bake and serve' dishes would be lost if their appearance was not such that they could be used as tableware. On the question that the items like cake dish, oval dish etc. has been considered as bowls, the ld. Collector held that this was not an allegation in the Show Cause Notice for disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 67/88 and the ld. Collector finally held that the product is eligible for the benefit of the notification. 5. Summing up his arguments, the ld. Counsel submitted that the product was undoubtedly tableware of glass and was eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88. In support of this claim, he c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Plates (4) Drinking glasses and (5) Bowls (i) Produced by semi-automative process, that is to say, where molten glass is taken to the first mould manually and where either compressed air or mechanically operated press is used. (ii) Produced by mouth blown process (iii) Other. 9. We note that the appellants argued that no ground was given in the Show Cause Notice disallowing the concession granted under Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. We observe that the appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 67/88 in their classification list and, therefore, it was necessary for them to indicate as to how they were eligible to the benefit of this notification and not for the Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Novopan India Limited v. CCE [1994 (73) E.L.T. 769] that while interpreting a tax statute of exemption notification, any ambiguity or doubt in an exemption provision, the same will be resolved in favour of the Revenue. This decision was further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. [1995 (75) E.L.T. 13]. In the instant case, the lower authorities examined the issue on the basis of technical literature as well as the dictionary meaning. The common parlance test also was applied and it was found that Rectangular Casserole did not fit in precisely under the coverage of the terms specified under Sl. No. 2 of the Annex. Table to the Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. 12. We have also seen the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and with this view and particularly in view of the fact the term, 'namely', appeared in the table as illustrative as was observed above." Thus, the Tribunal took support from the dictionary meaning of the term 'mug' which was similar to 'cup' and since cup was covered as the item mentioned in the Notification No. 67/88-C.E. Therefore, the Tribunal held that mug is eligible to concessional rate of duty under the aforesaid notification. Here in the instant case, nothing was placed before us to indicate that Rectangular Casserole was akin to Jugs, Cups, Plates, Drinking Glasses and Bowls. Thus, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alembic Glass Industries is not applicable to the case before us. 13. Having regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
