TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tariff Sub-heading 70.15 includes other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes. He submits that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes. He submits that the Tribunal in their own case i.e. Mridul Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 279 (Tribunal) held that Glass Mosaic Tiles are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 23A of erstwhile Tariff as Glass and Glassware. He submits that the Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the case of M/s. Empire Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Bombay, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 572. He submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in their own case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against decision of the Tribunal in the case M/s. Empire Industries Limited was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. A-103. He also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants that raw material for Glass Mosaic Tiles is Glass Powder. He, further submits that the desired shape of a tile was produced by bonding the glass powder and making a compact. The compacted mass is sintered at a temperature below the melting point of glass, resulting in the formation of the glass mosaic tiles. He, further submits that the appellant also marketing the goods as Glass mosaic tiles. He, further submits that the case law relied upon by the appellant is not applicable in the present case as under the Old Tariff, there was specific entry covering the Mosaic tiles. Therefore, in this situation the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not covered under Item No.23A of the Old Tariff as Glass and Glassware. 8. He also submits that the Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff covers the articles of Stone, Plaster, Cement, Asbestos, Mica or Similar Materials. The appellants are manufacturing the Glass Mosaic Tiles from Glass Powder. Therefore, these tiles cannot be called articles of Stones, Plaster, etc. He, further submits Tariff Sub-heading 70.15 specifically covers other articles of glass and word "includes" in the entry clears the doubt in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted by the appellant that Glass Mosaic Tiles being manufactured from the Glass Powder, hence the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials as covers under the Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Hence the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00. 14. Chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff covers "Glass and Glassware and Sub-heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff reads as under :- "Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes." The contention of the appellant is that the Glass Mosaic Tiles are not the articles of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decorations. Hence these are not covered under this Sub-heading. 15. We find that the Sub-heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff covers other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decorations or similar purposes. The word 'including' was interpreted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.S., Bombay v. Afsons Industrial Corporation, rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Judicial Member but I regret with respect to disagree with him on the conclusion reached by him on the question of classification. My order is as follows :- Question before us involved in this appeal is whether 'mosaic tiles' made of glass falls under TH 70.15 described as follows in the schedule to CETA, 1985 :- "Heading Sub-heading Description of goods 70.15 7015.00 Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading No. 70.07). or 68.07 6807.00 All other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials not elsewhere specified or included." Lower authorities have classified the goods under TH 70.15 whereas the appellants are claiming classification under TH 68.07. 20. Appellants' claim is based on the legislative history and judicial decisions relating to classification of the said product, whereas the lower authorities have relied on the Explanatory Notes to HSN under Chapter 70. Appellants', contention rebutting the finding of the lower authorities is that Chapter 70 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985 is not aligned w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product and how it is known in the trade. It is also pointed out by the learned advocate that Revenue's appeal against Tribunal's judgment in Empire Industries has been dismissed by Apex Court as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. A 103-104. 22. Next judgment relied upon by the appellant's learned advocate is in their own case reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 279 (Tribunal) [Mridul Enterprises v. CCE]. Now, the controversy was between TI 23A and 23D as aforesaid. The Tribunal held the product as classifiable under TI 23D pertaining to 'Mosaic Tiles', relying on the decision in Empire Industries, (supra). 23. Another judgment relied upon by Shri Chandrasekharan is in the case of Shon Ceramics (P) Ltd v. CCE reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 608. Controversy in that case was classification of Ceramic mosaic tiles - whether under TI 23B or 23D as aforesaid. The Tribunal while holding that the product was 'porcelainware' held that it was classifiable as 'mosaic tiles' under Item 23D because these were commercially known as 'mosaic tiles' and fitted the description of TI 23D more specifically. It relied on Mridul Enterprises (supra). 24. All the aforesaid decisions related to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that heading No. 70.07 or 70.13)". Elaborating this submission, learned advocate submits that while the effect of "other articles of glass" alone may be very wide and would have normally included the articles succeeding the word 'including', but spelling out those articles as being included in the expression 'other articles of glass', meaning of the said words "other articles of glass" is narrower than what it would normally convey. It is well-known that the word "including" is used to cover the articles succeeding the said word within the expressions preceding the said word 'including', although such succeeding articles would not have been covered in normal course. Result is that the widest meaning which can be given to the expression "other articles of glass" would be the specific articles stated after the word "including" and no more or at the most articles resembling or similar to such specified articles. In other words, the word "including" would acquire the effect of the word "means" or "namely". For this proposition learned advocate relied on the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the product was classifiable under TI 23A(4) relating to "other glassware" within TI 23A relating to "glass and glassware" under the old tariff as it existed before 1-3-1986. The judgment after discussing the character of the product from several angles i.e. its usage, its availability in the market, affidavits of architects and dealers came to the conclusion that it does not fall under the TI 23A. The said item was as wide in scope on it plain terms, as the Chapter 70 in present tariff schedule is. Any "glass and glassware" was covered within the scope of TI 23A. Yet the product was held to be outside its scope. Ratio of the said judgment would apply with full force even to the present tariff. As rightly, pointed out by the learned advocate, Tribunal's judgment in Empire Industries was without any influence from TI 23D pertaining to "Mosaic Tiles" because that item was just not in existence in the tariff during the period under consideration before the Bench. 30. Nature of the product would not change simply because that decision has been rendered under the old tariff and new tariff has come into existence. Appellants reliance on BPL Pharmaceuticals (supra) for thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the product has to be found a slot in the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants relying on Rule 4 of the 'Rules for Interpretation' of the tariff, put it under sub-heading 6807. We agree with this approach. There is no escape from it. At first sight, it looks odd to club glass mosaic tiles with 'all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included". We note that Chapters 68 to 70 fall under the same Section XIII of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, articles of these three chapters have greater affinity to each other than with articles in other sections of the tariff. Similar was the position in the old tariff. Goods under TIs 23 to 23D of this group together one after another, as set out earlier. Taking all these factors into consideration, product 'glass mosaic tiles' are rightly classifiable under TSH 6807.00 and the benefit of Notification 50/86-CE would be available to the product. 34. I agree with the learned Brother on this point that demand of duty in excess of Rs. 4,47,647.00 as mentioned in the show cause notice is liable to be set aside. This finding is, however only of academic interest in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce any of them unless required by any context of discussion herein. Supplemental and additional submissions will, of course, be recorded as and when required by the context. 39. The goods in question were manufactured by bonding glass powder into a compact. The compacted mass, shaped as tiles, was sintered at a temperature below the melting point of glass, which resulted in "glass mosaic tiles". Should these goods be classified under Tariff Sub-Heading 6807.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as - "All other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included." or should they be classified under Tariff Sub-Heading 7015.00 of the said Schedule as - "Other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading No. 70.07 or 70.13)"? 40. The very same product had been involved in the classification dispute in the appellants' own case viz. Mridul Enterprises v. C.C.E. [l998 (37) E.L.T 279 (T)], wherein the Tribunal had held the goods to be classifiable as "mosaic tiles" under Old Tariff Item 23D ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. 43. The expression "made from" is subtly different in meaning from the expression "made of". This difference as expounded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Techni-Glass Limited (supra), has a strong bearing on the classification of the appellants' product. Going by the process of manufacture of 'glass mosaic tiles', one may rightly say that the product is "made from" glass. It would be incorrect to say that it is "made of" glass. Only articles made of glass can be rightly called "glassware". According to Collin's Dictionary of the English Language, glassware means "articles made of glass". The very same meaning is given for the word in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edition Volume I. Therefore, glass mosaic tiles are not glassware or articles of glass. It follows that it would not be correct to classify such tiles as "other articles of glass......" under Tariff Sub-Heading 7015.00. 44. The learned Departmental Representatives submitted that glass mosaic tiles were most akin to glass and therefore could be classified only under appropriate Heading in Chapter 70 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 according to Rule 4 of the Interpretation Rules. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g No. 70.10 or 70.18) Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading No. 70.10 or 70.18) 70.16 70.16 Paving Blocks, Slabs, Bricks, Squares, Tiles and other articles of pressed or moulded glass, whether or not wired, of a kind used for building or construction purposes; glass cubes and other glass smallwares, whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative purposes; leaded lights and the like, multicellular or foam glass in blocks, panels, plates, shells or similar forms. Paving blocks, slabs, bricks, squares, tiles and other articles of pressed or moulded glass, whether or not wired, of a kind used for building of construction purposes; glass cubes and other glass smallwares, whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative purposes; leaded lights and the like; multi-cellular or foam glass in blocks, panels, plates, shells, or similar forms. 70.20 70.20 Other articles of glass. Other articles of glass. 46. After pointing out the fact that the Customs Tariff headings in Chapter 70 were very well aligne....