TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to classification, raised against this party as well as other manufacturers of Firozabad, two of whom are also respondents in these appeals before us. Whereas the Collector (Appeals) disposed of 5 other Orders-in-Original confirming the demand against this party for different periods by that very order, passed on classification issue, the appeals of the other two parties were disposed of by short orders, by reference to his Order-in-Appeal passed in this case. 2. The appeals have been commonly argued by Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR appearing for the Appellant. Shri Harbans Singh represented the respondents in this first group of six appeals, and Shri K.K. Kapoor, Consultant, in the other set of 6 appeals pertaining to two other manufacturers; namely; M/s. Durga Glass Works, and M/s. Advance Glass Works, of Firozabad. 3. The dispute relates to products what are commonly known as headlight covers, but described more precisely as : "glass lenses for automobile headlights". The respondents in this first appeal filed a classification list effective from 10-1-1980 declaring these goods to be classifiable under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET for short), giving out that these headl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, by virtue of the Explanation appended thereto, were in relation to electrical insulators or electrical insulating fittings with the result that every other article of glass and glassware would be covered by T.I. 23A(4). The Assistant Collector further held that Notification No. 329/77, dated 26-11-1977 as amended by Notification No. 25/79, dated 1-3-1979 provided concessional rates for certain varieties of glasswares, and Entry No. 3 of the Table annexed to this Notification, covered glassware produced by mouth blown process, as well as by manually operated process by manufacturers having tank furnace, and that all articles of glassware being produced by this process would be covered by this Entry, and since the process in the manufacture of headlight covers was also the same, they would be within the scope of Entry 3 of the said Notification, and that simply because they are used in automobiles, the headlight covers do not cease to be glass and glassware, as no such exception has been created in the Tariff itself. He further drew a distinction between commercial annealing and optical annealing and held that only glass, which was optically annealed could be said to be containing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with optical glass, even though it may have been worked optically to develop some of the properties required for optical glass and further that the Collector (Appeals) erred in basing his conclusions on the Bombay High Court judgment in M/s. Swadeshi Mills Co. case (supra) (1982 E.L.T. 237) but it was pleaded that the said case was distinguishable as the main reasoning there was with reference to the Explanatory Notes to the BTN in terms of para 87.06 and in that view of the matter, the windscreens were held to be parts of motor vehicles as having been specifically mentioned in the BTN, but nevertheless it was held that if a particular article of motor vehicle part is specifically included in the particular tariff entry, it will be covered by that specific entry. It was contended that the same test should apply here, and since T.I. 23A(4), should cover all articles of glass, these head covers had to be treated as covered by said Entry, which intention was further explicit from the wording of Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 329/77, dated 26-11-1977 as amended from time to time, and so have been erroneously held to be falling under T.I.68, and that the original view of the Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om glass in the same factory, that had not paid duty. Shri Tayal summed up his arguments by emphasising that all glass was bound to contain some optical properties, but that alone did not take it to category of optical glass, which, according to him had to be invariably optically worked, involving a special manufacturing process, and since no such process had been adopted, such as grinding or polishing, these headlight covers could not go out of the category of articles of glass covered by the description "other glassware", as contemplated by T.I. 23A(4). 9. The respondents replying through their counsel placed reliance on the previous order of the Bench relating to these very items, and in relation to parties belonging to the same Collectorate, and involving the same manufacturing process and the same raw material. A photo copy of the said order had been supplied in the Paper Book (Appeal No. 500/83). It was further pointed out that it was admitted in the Grounds of Appeal itself that these headlight covers contain some optical properties, which fact was conceded even in the Order-in-Original. 10. Shri K.K. Kapoor appearing for two sets of respondents, invited our attention to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have given our careful thought again to the matter in view of the fact that the learned SDR convassed very forcefully the grounds set up in the appeal, in spite of earlier order of the Bench. We have no manner of doubt, on a perusal of the relevant material; particularly the report of the National Physical Laboratory and other Glass Technologist, whose view has not been assailed in any manner nor has been countered by any expert evidence which Department may have or could have procured, that these headlight covers are special types of manufactures from glass, having certain optical properties, which are conceded to be present even in the Ground of Appeal, and the Board's letter for taking up our earlier Order to Supreme Court in appeal, where they have gone to the extent of saying that this might be optically worked. We also find full support for our earlier view, inasmuch as Supreme Court has laid emphasis in the case of M/s. Indo-International Industries (supra) [1981 E.L.T. 325 (S.C.)], on the test of trade or commercial, and the meaning attached to a product by the persons normally dealing in them. The same view was enunciated by the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. M....