G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. This is a Revision Application to the Government of India which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, has been transferred as an appeal to the Tribunal and is being disposed off accordingly.

2. The Appellants imported 2000 pieces of what are described as "Chrome Clad Glass Plates" through the Port of Madras. The Customs authorities at the said Port classified the goods under Heading 70.21 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Import Tariff) and assessed them to Customs Duty at 100% ad valorem (basic duty) 4-20% ad valorem (auxiliary duty) and to additional (countervailing) duty equal to the excise duty leviable under Item 23A of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the CET). After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the appellants filed refund claim on the ground that the goods should have been assessed to duty under Chapter 37 of the Import Tariff and that no additional duty of Customs should have been levied. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that it was unsubstantiated. The appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs holding that the goods were not photographic plates but mere glass plates. It is against this order that the Appellants filed a Revision Application to the Central Government which, as earlier pointed out, stands transferred to this tribunal for disposal.

3. In the Revision Application (Appeal), it is submitted that the goods are not mere glass plates but chrome clad glass plates (coated with about 1000 A thick chromium layer) for the manufacture of masks required in the manufacture of semi-conductor devices and integrated circuits. Since the duty leviable under the Import Tariff in respect of the impugned goods under the classification made by the lower authorities (Chapter 70-heading 70.01) and that claimed by the appellants (Chapter 37), was the same, the appellants submitted that the real issue was regarding the additional (countervailing duty) leviable on the goods.

4. One Shri I.D. Sachdeva, Liaison Officer of the appellant firm at Delhi, appeared before the Bench when the case was called on for hearing but he had appeared only to seek an adjournment of the case which, however, was rejected: He had no submissions to make on the merits of the matter. Appearing on behalf of the Department, Shri Chatterjee submitted that the correct classification of the goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule had to be determined from amongst Items Nos. 23A, 37C and 68. Of these, Item 37C had to be ruled out since it covered only the photographic goods specified therein and the present goods were not covered therein. The catalogue and write-up in respect of the goods would need to be seen before choosing between the 2 items.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions contained in the Revision Application (Appeal) and those made by Shri Chatterjee. The impugned goods are not plain glass plates but are described in the invoice and the bill of entry as "Chrome Clad Glass Plates". From the Appellate Collector's order it is seen that a technical write-up was produced before him which stated that the glass plates were coated with about 1000 A thick chromium layer and that they were used for manufacture of masks required for the production of semi-conductor devices and integrated circuits. The masks are manufactured by coating a thick layer of photo resist on the chrome clad glass plates and exposing them to ultra-violet light. The required patterns are tows obtained by selective etching. It may thus be seen that the impugned goods are not ordinary glass plates. They are composite goods - glass plates coated with chromium - and are used for a specific purpose. The proper classification of the goods under the Central Excise Tariff is, therefore, in our opinion, not under Item 23A but under Item 68. We order accordingly, allo