Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1990 (6) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding maintainability of the appeal in view of the fact that the Collector had dropped the proceedings. However subsequently he dropped the objection as the Collector's decision on classification would have a bearing on duty in respect of the goods which were seized but not confiscated. 3. In view of the above position the Bench held that the appeal is maintainable and allow both the sides to make submission on merits. 4. The learned counsel drew attention to the observations of the Collector with reference to the classification and stated that the learned Collector has erred inasmuch as the dictionary definition and the entry in the Encyclopaedia Britanica and also the ISI Standards relating to opthalmic lenses all go to show that sun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned SDR drew attention to the order of the Collector. He stated that Tariff Item 23-A, as it stood at the relevant time covered glass and glassware, and sub-item (4) includes glasses and glassware not otherwise specified. It was his contention that the term glass had been used in a wide sense and its scope is very large. In view of this position if the goods were only in form of blanks or had not yet acquired the characteristics of lenses then they would still fall under 23A(4). He further stated that in the order the Collector has sometimes used the word mouldings and, therefore, the factual position was not very clear and the Tariff Item 68 could come into picture only if 23A(4) was shown as non-applicable. In the circumstances he re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that "M/s. Ramchand Choith Ram Sons, Bombay are obtaining imported as well as indigenous coloured optical sheet glasses. In their factory they are cutting such sheets to required size. These cut pieces are moulded in the moulding machine by heat treatment. Such moulded glass pieces are thereafter packed and cleared". Further he has mentioned in the order that "the Company had installed lense moulding machines in their factory premises which was run with the aid of power. On the said machine they carried out the process of manufacture of glass moulding after giving the required heat and were cleared as moulded optical lenses and moulded sun glasses". In these circumstances the said officers seized 665 sets of glass mouldings in finished cond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 146/82. The Notification No. 146/82 amends the earlier notification and substitutes point 7 thereof to read as "spectacles, spectacle lenses and spectacle frames". Although these notifications are subsequent to the date of seizure in this case, there is a point in what the learned counsel says inasmuch as Tariff Item 23 (A)(4) and T.I. 68 the two competing entries have remained the same and the classification of spectacle lenses in the notification issued under Tariff Item 68 gives an indication of the mind of the department at the Government level. That was however by itself not sufficient and could not be treated as binding. Indeed the notifications themselves are strictly speaking not applicable to the instant case. The value of these....