Tribunal rules mugs exempt under Notification No. 67/88-C.E. as glass tableware

The tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that mugs should be considered exempt under Notification No. 67/88-C.E. as tableware of glass eligible for a concessional rate of duty. The tribunal interpreted the term 'namely' in the notification as illustrative, not exhaustive, and considered dictionary definitions of 'cup' and 'mug' as drinking vessels. As mugs were akin to drinking glasses, the tribunal granted the appellants relief in accordance with the notification's provisions.

---

---

Issues:
- Eligibility of mugs for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:

The case revolved around the eligibility of mugs for a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The notification provided exemptions for certain glassware produced by semi-automatic processes and specified tableware of glass. The central issue was whether mugs fell under the category of tableware of glass eligible for the concessional rate of duty as per the notification.

During the proceedings, the appellants did not appear, but they requested a decision on the merits of the case. The appellants argued that the key issue was determining whether a mug could be classified as a drinking glass under the relevant notification. They also suggested applying the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting the notification. The order was passed after hearing the Revenue's representative.

Upon reviewing the facts and records, the tribunal observed that the notification referred to tableware of glass, including jugs, cups, plates, drinking glasses, and bowls. The department contended that since mugs were not explicitly mentioned, they should not be granted the benefit of the notification. However, the tribunal interpreted the term 'namely' in the context of the notification as illustrative rather than exhaustive. The tribunal referred to dictionary definitions of 'cup' and 'mug,' highlighting that both were recognized as drinking vessels in the English language.

Based on the dictionary definitions and the understanding that the term 'namely' in the notification was illustrative, the tribunal concluded that mugs should also be considered exempt under Notification No. 67/88 dated 1-3-1988. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants consequential relief in line with the notification's provisions.

---