TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant period (1-4-1979 to 4-3-1980), as falling under Tariff Item 68, but effected clearances without payment of Central Excise duty considering the goods as exempt from excise duty, by virtue of Notification No. 77/79-C.E. as amended from time to time and also thought them to be not subject to licensing control and other formalities by virtue of Notification No. 111/78. They accordingly never applied for any excise licence, nor submitted classification and price lists. 3. On the matter coming to notice of the concerned excise authorities, the respondents were served with a show cause notice, by invoking provisions of Rules 9 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and duty amount of ₹ 97,790.70 was demanded on the view that the goods manufactured and cleared by them fell under T.I. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the CET). This demand was confirmed by Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut dated the August 1981 (actual date not indicated) holding that the goods manufactured by the respondent before him as items of glass, fell within the category of goods, as contemplated by sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, by way of this Review Notice, which stands transferred to the Tribunal to be treated and disposed of as an appeal, by virtue of provisions of Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Accordingly, the Central Government is being treated as an appellant in these proceedings whereas the manufacturers, namely, M/s. Trutuff Safety Glass Industries as the respondents. 6. The grounds as enunciated in this appeal proceed on the assumption that the party having admitted that they had manufactured toughened glass and observing that technology adopted for the manufacture thereof being similar to other glass technology, and the manufacturers even style themselves as Safety Glass Industries , and that the goods were popularly known as safety toughened glass, which could be put to various uses, and for purposes of various items, and were not necessarily restricted to parts of motor vehicles alone, and as such the Board had gone wrong in accepting the party s contention that the goods manufactured by them were parts/accessories of motor vehicles, and not covered by the generic entry of T.I. 23A(4) which related to Glass or Glassware . 7. A detailed reply was filed by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vehicle. 8. It was thus asserted that the finished goods cease to be glass or glassware , on any account whatever as understood in the ordinary sense. Reference was also made to the standards laid down for these products by the ISI, reference being to IS : 2553-1971, which standard, according to them lays down specification of thickness, uniformity and fragmentation test, and optical requirements which, in turn, was adopted from British Standards Institution, meant for different models of land transport vehicles. They asserted that the finished wind screens, etc. manufactured by them strictly conform to the specifications laid by the ISI and this fact alone, according to them, ought to rule out any doubt as to their exclusive use in land transport vehicles. Stress was also laid on the ordinary commercial meaning attached to these articles and as to how the trading community dealing therewith understood them to be. They placed reliance on certain affidavits, in this regard, annexed with the reply to Show Cause Notice, and collectively marked as Annexure 11, as well as some copies of Orders received by them (Annexure III), and some invoices (Annexure VI), in support of their c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the pre-amendment period and as such was not directly applicable. 11. Shri Daya Sagar, Consultant for the respondent at the outset, brought on record that correct title of the Bombay case was Maharashtra Safety Glass Works and for that he gave reference of 1982 ECR 271-D = 1982 E.L.T. 237, and pointed out that the discussion in that case clearly showed that the Hon ble High Court had the amended tariff very much in view, and after considering all the aspects held that such types of specified items, prepared to given specifications, and having special properties, could be neither plain glass nor glass sheets. He highlighted the discussion in para 11 of the said judgment where reference was made to number of other cases on the subject decided by the Supreme Court and other High Courts laying stress on the fact that while interpreting fiscal statutes, regard should be had to ordinary trade parlance and understanding of the commercial community and the Courts or concerned authorities should not go by technical or scientific works on the subject. 12. He also pointed out, with reference to the papers filed by him, that some products involving much simpler process than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies as they read respectively before the amendment in 1979, and after the same, because the Bombay High Court had in focus both the entries and also the classifications indicated by the BTN on which the Collector in this case had also placed much reliance and had come to the clear finding that even the Brussels Nomenclature indicated that these wind screens did fall within the category of motor vehicle parts . We reproduce in this connection, following portion from the judgment which is part of para 10 thereof, while discussing para 87.06 of the BTN (P. 1500), .....It is mentioned in sub-para B that parts of bodies and associated accessories are classified in the present heading of parts and accessories of the motor vehicles and the parts and accessories which are enumerated by way of illustration include wind screens. It is thus clear that even according to the Brussels Nomenclature windscreen cannot be anything but a motor part. 14. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court also highlighted the fallacy under which the excise authorities were labouring in the case before them by observing that glass is raw material which is processed into an entirely different commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
