2007 (8) TMI 21 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court: Toughened safety glass covered under Sales Tax Act.

TRUTUF SAFETY GLASS INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP

TRUTUF SAFETY GLASS INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 14 (SC) , (2007) 7 SCC 242, [2007] 8 VST 661 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Taxability of toughened safety glass under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.2. Interpretation of the expression 'glass and glass wares in all forms' in the relevant notification.3. Applicability of the decision in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise.4. Principles of statutory interpretation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Toughened Safety Glass:The appellant, a manufacturer of toughened safety glass including wind screens, door screens, side screens, and back screens, challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which held that these articles did not constitute 'glass' or 'glassware' within the meaning of the Notification under Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, which had previously granted the appellant a recognition certificate for purchasing raw materials and packing materials without paying sales tax.2. Interpretation of 'Glass and Glass Wares in All Forms':The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the expression 'glass and glass wares in all forms' as mentioned in the Notification No. ST-II-7551/X-9(1)-76 dated 31.12.1976. The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider the expression 'in all forms' properly, which should have included the toughened safety glass manufactured by the appellant. The High Court, however, relied on the decision in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, interpreting that the products manufactured by the appellant did not fall under the category of 'glass' or 'glassware.'3. Applicability of Atul Glass Industries Case:The High Court's decision was based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, where it was held that a new commodity substantially different from the original could not be classified under the same entry. The appellant contended that the High Court misapplied this precedent, as the case at hand involved the broader expression 'in all forms,' which was not considered in Atul Glass Industries.4. Principles of Statutory Interpretation:The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions based on the plain and unambiguous language used by the legislature. The Court reiterated that the words and phrases used in the statute should be given their ordinary meaning, and the intention of the legislature should be gathered from the language used. The Court also highlighted the 'common parlance test,' where the meaning attached to terms by those dealing in them is considered. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in not considering the expansive nature of the expression 'in all forms,' which widened the scope of the entry to include the articles manufactured by the appellant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal. The expression 'in all forms' in the notification was intended to include various forms of glass and glassware, including the toughened safety glass manufactured by the appellant. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Tribunal's decision, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.