Tariff classification of composite chrome clad glass plates fell under the residuary entry, securing refund relief.

Chrome clad glass plates used to manufacture masks for semi-conductor devices and integrated circuits were treated as composite articles with a specific industrial function, not as ordinary glass plates. Because they did not answer the description of Item 23A of the Central Excise Tariff, that specific entry was held inapplicable and the goods were classified under the residuary Item 68. The classification dispute was therefore resolved in favour of the appellants, with refund of the consequential duty granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether chrome clad glass plates used for manufacture of masks for semi-conductor devices and integrated circuits were correctly classifiable for countervailing duty under Item 23A of the Central Excise Tariff, or whether they fell under Item 68.

Analysis: The goods were not ordinary glass plates but composite articles consisting of glass plates coated with a chromium layer and ed for a specific industrial use. Their description in the invoice and supporting technical material showed that they were used in the manufacture of masks for semi-conductor devices and integrated circuits. On that basis, the goods did not answer the description of Item 23A, which was not the appropriate tariff entry for such composite goods.

Conclusion: The proper classification was under Item 68 and not under Item 23A, and the appellants were entitled to refund of the consequential duty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the tariff classification issue, resulting in refund relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are composite articles with a specific industrial function and do not fit the specific tariff description relied upon by the revenue, they are to be classified under the residuary entry.

---