Commercial parlance governs classification of motor-vehicle glass parts over raw material identity in tariff disputes.

Toughened windscreens, side screens, vent glass and back glass manufactured to motor-vehicle specifications were treated as distinct commercial goods, not as plain glass. Applying commercial parlance and trade understanding, the commentary notes that the finished articles were regarded in trade as motor vehicle parts, supported by affidavits, invoices and orders, and the raw glass character did not control classification. On that basis, the departmental view that the goods fell under Tariff Item 23A(4) was rejected, and classification under Tariff Item 68 was maintained. The discussion also notes that the Board's classification and duty relief were not displaced by departmental review.

---

---

Issues: Whether toughened windscreen, side screen, vent and back screen glass manufactured to specific specifications for motor vehicles was classifiable under Tariff Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Tariff Item 68, and whether the departmental review could displace the Board's classification and duty relief.

Analysis: The product was examined as a distinct commercial commodity manufactured from ordinary glass sheet by cutting, shaping, drilling and toughening to meet specified automobile requirements. The reasoning proceeded on commercial parlance and trade understanding, with emphasis that the finished articles were understood in trade as motor vehicle parts rather than as plain glass or glassware. Reliance was placed on the earlier identical windscreen classification decision of the Bombay High Court, which treated windscreens as motor vehicle parts under the tariff structure and rejected the approach of equating the raw material with the finished product. The record also contained unrebutted affidavits, invoices and orders supporting automobile-part character. In these circumstances, the departmental contention that the items fell within Tariff Item 23A(4) was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 23A(4); the Board's order was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification of goods not defined in the tariff, their commercial identity in trade and their distinct finished-product character prevail over the identity of the raw material, and articles manufactured to specific automobile specifications may be classified as motor vehicle parts rather than as glass.

---