SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
M/s. Atul Glass Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3435 of 1984 and T.C. Nos. 349, 350 and 355 of 1983
Decided on 10-7-1986.*
AND
M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Mr. Soli J. Sorabji, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Bishambar Lal, Mr. H. K. Kochar, Mr. Beri, Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Mr. Rajesh Agarwal and Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha, Advocates with them for Appellants; Mr. G. Das, Sr. Advocate, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. P. P. Singh, Mr. C. V. Subba Rao and Ms. Sushma Relan, Advocates with him for Respondents.
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Section 35L(b) - Finance Act, 1979 - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Customs Tariff Bill, 1985 - U. P. Sales Tax Act – appellant carries on business of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors. It purchases duty paid glass sheets from manufacturers of glass, and either in their original size or after reducing them to smaller sizes puts glass sheets through a process of treatment - Glass pieces are buffed with the aid of buffing machines in order to improve surface of glass and prepare it for mirror processing - Glass is fed into an automatic silvering conveyor line where it passes through a stage of mechanical cleaning and Polishing with the aid of nylon bristle brushes so that the glass surface is rendered free of scratches, dust particles and carbohydrates - Glass is then washed mechanically with aid of cylindrical brushes using distilled water as a washing medium - After amendment of Tariff Item No. 34A by the Finance Act, 1979 scope of Tariff Item is restricted to 15 commodities specified therein - That being so the screens manufactured by the petitioner merit classification in the residuary Tariff Item No. 68 - Civil Appeal is allowed, order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the order of Collector (Appeals) is restored - In Transfer Cases, Court allow writ petitions and direct glass mirrors and screens manufactured by petitioner be treated to excise duty in fight of observations made by us - Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
PATHAK, J.:— The question raised in the appeal filed by Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (C.A. No. 3435 of 1984) under S. 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is whether glass mirrors fall under Tariff Item No. 23A( 4) or Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act.
2. That is also the question raised in the Transferred Cases Nos. 349, 350 and 355 of 1983 filed by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., with an additional question whether the glass screens fitted in motor vehicles as wind screens rear screens and window screens fall under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item No. 68.
3. The appellant, Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., carries on the business of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors. It purchases duty paid glass sheets from the manufacturers of glass, and either in their original size or after reducing them to smaller sizes puts the glass sheets through a process of treatment. The glass pieces are buffed with the aid of buffing machines in order to improve the surface of the glass and prepare it for mirror processing. The glass is fed into an automatic silvering conveyor line where it passes through a stage of mechanical cleaning and Polishing with the aid of nylon bristle brushes so that the glass surface is rendered free of scratches, dust particles and carbohydrates. The glass is then washed mechanically with the aid of cylindrical brushes using distilled water as a washing medium. Thereafter the glass surface is sensitised by chemical compounds such as stannous chloride, and rinsed with distilled or demineralised water to remove excess of chemicals. The sensitised glass is passed through a chamber where silver in liquid form with the aid of reducing solutions is applied as a very thin and uniform adherent reflective film on the surface of the glass. The silver coating, being of malleable metal, is protected by a coating of copper in the form of a thin metal deposit with the aid of an electromagnetic spray system. The excess of copper and acidic solutions are rinsed away with the distilled or demineralised water. Subsequently hot air is employed for the purpose of drying, and the humidity is removed completely with the aid of an infra-red heating system. After thorough drying, the silver and copper coatings are protected with four coats of special mirror backing paint applied with the aid of a roller coating machine in four stages. The paint is baked in the baking conveyor after thorough drying. The other side of the mirror is mechanically cleaned. The mirror thus produced is finally sent for quality control inspection. Cut glass is employed in the case of decorative mirrors. The cut glass is shaped with the aid of cutting lathe-machines before subjecting it to the silver process. Edge grinding or bevelling and hole-drilling is done, if required, after the mirror has been manufactured.
4. Before the budget of 1979, Tariff Item No. 23 relating to glass and glassware prescribed the different rates of duty in respect of (1) sheet glass and plate glass, (2) laboratory glassware, (3) glass shells, glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern, and (4) other glassware including table-ware. During the period following the budget of 1979 which is the period which concerns us, Tariff Item No. 23A relating to glass and glassware specified the rates of duty in respect of (1) flat glass, which included sheet glass, wired glass and rolled glass whether in the form of the plate glass, figured glass or in any other form, (2) laboratory glassware, (3) glass shells, glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern and (4) other glass and glassware including tableware. Tariff Item No. 68 is of residuary character and relates to "all other goods not elsewhere specified", but excluding alcohol, opium and certain other goods specified therein. The rate of duty is higher if the product falls under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) than if it fell under Tariff Item
relied on : Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. V. State of Haryana
Delhi Cloth and General Milk Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
State of U. P. v. Kores (India) Ltd
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India
Indo International Industries v. CST
State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd
State of Orissa v. Janta Medical Stores
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.