Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, G. Sankaran, H.R. SYIEM, JJ.
Empire Industries Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Respondent
Order No. C-721 of 1984, 721 of 1984
Decided On : 05-10-1984
R.K. Habbu,A.K. Jain
M. Gouri Shankar Marthy, Member (J)
1. The material facts in this Revision Application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an appeal in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, in short) are :-
(a) tiles for decoration of wall surfaces were manufactured by M/s. Vitrum Glass Division originally. It was taken over by the Appellant some time in 1967 ;
(b) in June 1967, the Assistant Collector would appear to have classified the tiles under Item 23A(4) of the First Schedule to the Act. An Appeal against the said classification was rejected as barred by time and a Revision preferred against it rejected ;
(c) the Appellant filed a fresh classification list on or about 19-9-1973 claiming that the goods in question did not fall within Item No. 23A (4) and, consequently, they are not excisable. On the rejection of the request for re-classification, the Appellant carried the matter in Revision to the Government of India. In disposing of the said Revision, by the order dated 16-2-1967, the Government directed an examination of the matter on merits (Exhibit 'D' to the Revision Application) ;
(d) on such examination, the Assistant Collector, by his order dated 31-5-76, came to the conclusion that the tiles, in question, are building material and cannot be classified as "Glassware" under Item No. 23A(4) of the First Schedule to the Act. He held, inter alia that :-
(i) ordinary glass and the tiles in question are distinct from each other, though identical raw material is made use of in their manufacture to a great extent;
(ii) the Deputy Chief Chemist in his opinion was uncertain and required the views of the trade to be elicited before deciding the issue as to whether the tiles can be said to be "other glassware";
(iii) on the evidence adduced from the trade as well as upon independent enquiry (Supdt.'s letter No. CEX 20/76/903 dated 21-5-76) it would appear that the Appellant's products are not available with those who deal in glassware or tableware. It is only to be found with shopkeepers and dealers who keep for sale building material like floor tiles, cement and sand, etc. ;
(iv) the tiles are being assessed under a separate schedule as "roofing tiles" or "floor tiles" for the purposes of Sales Tax ;
(v) accordingly, the tiles, in question, are neither glass sheets, nor glassware nor tableware, because they were not known as such in the market. Nor do they contain the basic properties and characteristics and requirements of glass and glassware. (order of the Assistant Collector at Exhibit E annexed to the Revision Application) ;
(e) the Central Board of Excise
(i) the description of the tiles in question as mosaic tiles by the Assistant Collector would appear to be wrong. The term "mosaic tiles" is understood in the trade to be tiles in each of which a mosaic pattern has been formed through chips of different colours distributed throughout the surface of the tiles. In the case of the Appellant there is no pattern in each individual tile. The mosaic pattern has to be contrived by the arrangement of different coloured tiles;
(ii) the tiles in question are made using the same basic material as glass, viz. silicon and soda. The method of manufacture is similar to that used in the manufacture of glass. The finished product has the appearance of opaque glass. Accordingly, the tiles can be classified as "other glasswares" under Item 23A of the First Schedule to the Act. (Exhibit F annexed to the Revision Application) ;
(f) on showing cause, the Board in its order dated 30-3-81, set aside the Assistant Collector's order and directed that the goods in question should be classified as "glass" and "glassware" and duty should be paid
