Primary function and utility test denied exemption for ceramic glass colours treated as distinct from ceramic colours.

Ceramic glass colours were treated as distinct from ceramic colours for exemption purposes because they were separately listed in the classification list, differed on chemical testing, and served different industrial uses. Applying the test of primary function and utility, the product used in the glass industry was found to retain a glass-forming character on heating, while ceramic colours remained suited to ceramic applications. The exemption under Notification No. 35/85-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 78/86-C.E., was therefore held not to extend to ceramic glass colours, and the claim for relief failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether ceramic glass colours were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 35/85-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 78/86-C.E., as available to ceramic colours.

Analysis: The products were found to be separately shown in the classification list, to have different characteristics on chemical testing, and to serve different uses in different industries. Ceramic glass colour melts and forms a glass-like material on heating and is used in the glass industry, whereas ceramic colour retains the characteristics of ceramic colour and is used in the ceramic industry. Applying the test of the primary function and utility of the article, the two goods were treated as distinct products. The exemption extended to ceramic colours was held not to cover ceramic glass colours.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 35/85-C.E. read with Notification No. 78/86-C.E. was not available to ceramic glass colours, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

---