1994 (11) TMI 133 - SC - Central Excise

Appeal success: Glassware excise duty classification overturned, compressor use clarified.

The appeal challenged the classification of glassware for excise duty under Notification No. 329/77, specifically whether the glassware fell under Serial ... Whether the glassware such as globes, chimneys, gallon screw jars, tumblers manufactured by the appellant manually was exigible to duty in the relevant year under Serial No. 1 or 3 of the Table to the Notification No. 329/77, dated 26th November, 1977? Held that:- It was the use of compressed air which was decisive of exemption irrespective of whether it was used at the first or the second mould. Consequently the glassware manufactured by the appellant was produced by semi-automatic process as contemplated in the Notification at Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 329/77.Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. It is held that the glassware manufactured by the appellant during the period in dispute was exigible to duty under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 329/77. Issues:Classification of glassware for excise duty under Notification No. 329/77 - whether produced manually or by semi-automatic process.Analysis:The appeal challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of glassware manufactured manually by the appellant for excise duty under Notification No. 329/77. The key issue was whether the glassware fell under Serial No. 1 or 3 of the Notification.Notification No. 265/77 fully exempted manually manufactured glassware from excise duty, while Notification No. 329/77 granted partial exemption to glassware produced manually and by semi-automatic process. The appellant claimed its glassware was covered under Serial No. 3, but a show cause notice proposed to classify it under Serial No. 1. The Assistant Collector initially accepted the appellant's classification but later issued a review notice. The Asstt. Collector held that the glassware fell under Item 1 as compressed air was not used in the first mould.The Tribunal found that the final shape of the glassware was given at the second mould using compressed air, leading to the conclusion that the glassware did not fall under Serial No. 3 of the Notification. The dispute centered on whether compressed air usage in the first or second mould was determinative for classification.The Notification required glassware to be produced by a semi-automatic process, involving manually taking molten glass to the first mould and using compressed air. The Tribunal's interpretation that compressed air must be used in the first mould was deemed incorrect. The use of the word 'where' before 'compressed air' signified a relation or situation, not a specific location, indicating that compressed air usage in either mould sufficed for classification under the semi-automatic process.Citing a relevant case, the Department argued for a strict construction of exemption Notifications in favor of the State. However, as there was no ambiguity in the Notification, the argument was deemed irrelevant. The appeal succeeded, setting aside the Tribunal's order and holding the glassware as dutiable under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 329/77. The appellant was awarded costs.