AND Tax Revision Case No.234 of 2009 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY The instant Tax Revision Case is filed by the petitioner herein under Section 22(1) Read With Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 praying the Court to revise the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A.No.1106/2003, dated 06.02.2009, (for short, the ‘impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax, for the petitioner; and Mr.K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The short question involved in the instant Revision is whether the glass used in the automobiles would fall within Entry-I of the First Schedule (or) Entry No.18 of the Sixth Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

4. In the opinion of this Bench, the issue involved in the instant Tax Revision Case stands squarely answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 480 , wherein the learned Division Bench held at paragraphs Nos.17 & 19 as under, viz., “17. Upon the tests and having regard to the foregoing considerations which have appealed to us when considering the proper classification of glass mirrors, we have no hesitation in holding that the screens cannot be described as “glass or glasswares” under Tariff Item No.23-A(4). No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as “glass or glassware”. They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts. Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item No.23-A(4) realting to “glass or glassware” also, inasmuch as Tariff Item No.34-A is a special entry and Tariff Item No.23-A(4) as a general entry, the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No.34-A which prevails and is attracted.

… … …

19. In the result, Civil Appeal No.3435 of 1984 is allowed, the order dated July 24, 1984 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the order dated January 24, 1984 of the Collector (Appeals) is restored. In the Transfer Cases, we allow the writ petitions and direct that the glass mirrors and screens manufactured by the petitioner be treated to excise duty in the light of the observations made by us. The parties shall bear their own costs.”

5. The above decision has also been relied upon by the Tribunal in the course of passing of the impugned order.

6. Therefore, this Bench of the opinion that as the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court still holds good, we do not find any merits in the instant Tax Revision Case. Accordingly, the Tax

Revision Case stands dismissed confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.1106/2003, dated 06.02.2009. No costs.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any shall stand closed.

P.SAM KOSHY, J SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date : 13.08.2025 Ndr