Specialised classification for laboratory glassware depends on composition, design and end-use, not mere visual impression of general use.

Glass bottles described as tissue culture and McCartney USP type were treated as laboratory glassware where their composition, specialised design, higher cost and actual supply to laboratories and research institutions supported the classification claim. The department's reliance on visual inspection and the view that the bottles could also serve general purposes was held insufficient because it did not test the goods or otherwise rebut the assessee's evidence of specialised laboratory use. The bottles were therefore accepted as laboratory glassware, and the related exemption claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the glass bottles manufactured by the respondent were classifiable as laboratory glassware under T.I. 23A(2) and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 83/82-C.E. dated 28-2-1982.

Analysis: The goods were described as tissue culture and McCartney USP type flint glass bottles and were shown to be sold to universities, laboratories and institutions engaged in research. The classification claim was supported by the asserted special borosilicate composition, neutral character, higher cost than ordinary soda lime glass bottles, and use for culture and media growth in laboratories. The department rejected the claim mainly on visual inspection and a personal view that the bottles could also serve general purposes. Such a rejection was held insufficient because the department did not conduct enquiries, get the goods tested, or otherwise rebut the claim that the bottles were specially designed and used for laboratory and research work.

Conclusion: The bottles were held to be classifiable as laboratory glassware and the exemption claim was accepted; the departmental appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee substantiates a specialised classification claim for goods by their description, composition and actual end-use, the department must rebut that claim by proper enquiry and evidence, and cannot deny the classification merely on a visual or personal impression of possible general use.

---