9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uper Scientific Glass Industries) - (1) The appellants filed declarations in terms of Rule 174(2) and the notification issued thereunder, during the period April, 1991 to April, 1995 claiming exemption from licensing control on the ground that the product manufactured by them was exempt from payment of duty. The fact of filing of these declarations is acknowledged by the Commissioner in the impugned order. In each declaration the products were described as laboratory glassware classifiable under sub-heading 7012.10. In a number of years during this period, the tariff rate of duty for this heading was nil. For one year duty was prescribed under the heading but the products were exempted by virtue of Notification 38/94. In terms of these declarations the appellants were clearing these products. In October, 1994 their premises were searched. The sales literature and the catalogues were examined. Statements of their buyers were recorded. The conclusion reached on the basis of the investigation was that what the appellants had manufactured and cleared were the entire industrial units for manufacture of chemicals. It was ascertained that the buyers had placed orders for such plants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178, the dictionary meaning should be referred to. He submits that Websters Dictionary defines laboratory as "a place for manufacture of chemicals in industry". The Concise Oxford Dictionary would define the phrase as "a room or building for the manufacture of drugs and chemicals". We find the definition in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as below : "A room or building set aside and equipped for scientific experiments or research for teaching science, or for the development or production of chemical or medicinal products". Shri Doiphode also submits a long list of manufacturers of pharmaceuticals such as Cadila Laboratories who are engaged in the production of pharmaceuticals and are not exclusively engaged in analysis or tests. (5) For settlement of this dispute it would be necessary to examine the coverage of the respective tariff entries. What goods the entry 70.17 covers and what it leaves out is given in the sub-notes of the HSN. It would be necessary to reproduce the same here : "This heading covers glass articles of a kind in general use in laboratories (resea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring products would cease to be laboratory glassware falling under 70.12 and must necessarily fall under 70.15. As we have observed above the individual pieces or parts which could together form a complete unit are specifically listed as being included in the HSN Heading 70.17. What are excluded are "glassware of a kind used for industrial purposes (Heading 70.20)". Smt. R. Arya laid stress on this exclusion clause and claimed that wherever any glassware is used for industrial purpose, it would cease to classify as laboratory glassware. We have examined the coverage of Heading 70.20 in the HSN also. This is a residuary heading and cannot be taken resort to unless a product is incapable of falling under any of the predecessor headings. What is included in this residuary entry is specified in the sub-notes. Essentially these are glass articles for use in specific industrial applications such as the tanning of skins. These also include guttering and drains for corrosive products and components made of glass in textile machinery such as trade guides. These are specific products includible in the residuary category and the coverage does not enable laboratory glassware to be covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... list and where the department after due enquiry had approved the same, at a later date using them as a basis suppression could not be alleged. We find merit in the claim of limitation also. (10) Thus on merits and on the point of limitation the appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief. Appeal No. E/937-R/97-Bom (Pioneer Scientific Glass Works) (1) The facts in this case are identical to the facts narrated above in the appeal filed by Super Scientific Glass Industries. The appellants in this case had filed declarations from 1991 onwards. The products were identically worded and stated as in the case of Super Scientific Glass Industries. There is no dispute that these declarations were with the department. After the completion of investigations which proceeded on similar grounds as in the case of Super Scientific Glass Industries, two show cause notices were issued. The first invoked the extended period and demanded duty of Rs. 42,71,082/-. The other show cause notice demanding Rs. 1,86,070/- was for the normal period. The allegations were identical. The findings of the Commissioner also followed the same logic as was used by him in claiming the scientifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r discussions on merits in the first named appeals. The case on limitation here is stronger in the face of the fact that the RT 12 returns were filed and were assessed in spite of the enclosures which would have shown that the various goods were invoiced to the same buyers. Appeal Nos. E/2622, 2623 & 2624-RV/98-Bom (Smriti Scientific & Co., Garg Lab Glass Industries and Sunil Garg) (1) These three appeals arise out of the combined order of the Commissioner. Sunil Garg is the partner of both Smriti Scientific & Co. and Garg Lab Glass Industries. The charge made in the combined show cause notice was that both assessees had cleared glass plant and equipments such as the vessels, heat exchangers etc. and that for these articles the appropriate heading was under 70.15 and not 70.12. The reasoning given in the show cause notices followed the reasoning given in the show cause notice leading to the orders discussed in the earlier appeals. In addition the claim was made that these two assessees units were in fact one and that their clearances should be combined for purpose of determination of duty as calculated on products falling under Heading 70.15. The Commissioner did not uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
