JUDGMENT

R.M.SAHAI,J. :- This appeal is directed against the order of Customs, Excise & Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The short question of law that arises for consideration is whether the glassware such as globes, chimneys, gallon screw jars, tumblers manufactured by the appellant manually was exigible to duty in the relevant year under serial Nos. 1 or 3 of the Table to the Notification No. 329/77 dated 26th November, 1997.

2. By Notification No. 265-77 dated 3rd August, 1977, glassware manufactured manually were fully exempted from payment of excise duty. Notification No. 266/77 applied to other glassware. Both these notifications were superseded by Notification No. 330/77 and Notification No. 329/77 was issued which granted partial exemption of duty over and above 18% ad valorem to glassware produced manually and 24% ad valorem to glassware-produced by semi-automatic process. The appellant in the classification list submitted to the Department claimed that the glassware manufactured by it was covered under serial No. 3 of Notification No. 329/77. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. However, on 23rd August, 1978 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to classify the goods under serial No. 1. In the reply it was stated by the appellant that it was known to the Department that the appellant used compressed air and even though it was used in the second mould it did not make any difference and the goods were covered by Item No. 3. This explanation was accepted by the Department and the notice issued was cancelled. Fresh notice was issued under Section 35-A (2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on 10th December, 1979 for review of the order cancelling the earlier notice. This was contested and the appellant claimed that the authority had no jurisdiction to review or revise the order. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 5th January, 1981 reviewed the earlier order and held that the glassware manufactured by the appellant fell under Item 1 of the Notification as compressed air was not used in the first mould. In appeal it was held that the molten glass was brought from the furnace to the first mould manually by a worker and another worker operated the press resulting in what was described as processing of the glass. It further found that the final shape to the article manufactured by the appellant was given at the second mould by using compressed air. It consequently held that since there was no use of compressed air in the production process of the glassware in the first mould, the articles manufactured by the appellant did not fall in serial No. 3 of the Notification.

3. Relevant part of the Notification No. 329/77 is extracted below:

"Glassware including tableware produced by semi-automatic 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"

None of the authorities disputed that in the manufacturing process the molten glass was taken by the appellant to the first mould manually. Nor there was any dispute that the compressed air was used by the appellant. The narrow difference arose whether the compressed air was used in the first or the second mould. The appellant admitted that it was used in the second mould for giving the final shape. According to Tribunal the Notification exempted only those glassware where molten glass was not only taken to the first mould manually but the compressed air or mechanically operated press was also used in the first mould. The short question is if this was correct reading of the Notification. The benefit under the Notification has been given to the glassware produced by semi-automatic process. What is meant by semi-automatic process is further explained by limiting it to such glassware in the production of which the molten glass was taken in the first mould and where compressed air was used. But there is indication that th