AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (7) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../C.E./80 (Glass mirrors), dated 8-1-1980, mirrors and certain items would merit classification under Item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff and they should thereafter submit L-4 applications under the above tariff item and pay duty accordingly. 2. M/s. Atul Glass Industries Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) filed Civil Writ petition No. 106/80 before High Court Delhi against the said directions. Later, as directed by the High Court in the said petition, they filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and the same was later disposed of by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi under his order dated 24-1-1984, whereunder he set aside the directions of the Superintendent, Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... need not be gone into now and that as the appeal relates to a simple question of classification only, it may be disposed of by this Tribunal finally without a remand. Thereafter arguments were continued and both sides were heard with reference to their respective contentions. 5. Shri Tayal submitted that mirrors would fall under Item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff, being glassware as mentioned in that item. Item 23A(4) relates to "other glass and glassware including tableware". In this connection, Shri Kampani pointed out that there had been some vacillation on this question even in the grounds of appeal, since grounds (2) to (5) appeared to read as if mirrors are to be classified under the heading "glassware". Whereas gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP (AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1079), in interpreting items in statutes like Excise Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical term on expressions used, but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. We have, therefore, to consider whether mirrors would in common trade parlance be known as "glassware" or not. Sri Tayal claimed it would be so and pointed out that mirrors could be commonly obtained from traders dealing in glassware. But Sri Kampani contended that mirrors are also available in general stores as well as furniture dealers and, therefore, it would not be correct to contend that mirrors would be "glassware" because they may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as part of glassware, would also support the contention of the appellant. Sri Kampani, no doubt, pointed out that the said glossary deals with other items such as toughened glass, wired glass, etc., also but that they have been held to be not classifiable under item 23A(4) by the Bombay High Court as also this Tribunal. But that was only on the basis that they were not glass as contended by the Department. 9. Sri Kampani contended that mirrors would not be glassware but only an article of toilet or a toilet requisite. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Tarkeshwar Nath Agarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (34 Sales Tax Cases 497). But that decision turned on the entries in the UP Sales Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urpose. But in case of mirrors, they are plate glass with a coating of silver nitrate and other protective coating on one side, with no specialised use except to reflect objects. Therefore, reliance on the decision in 1983 E.L.T. 589 does not appear to be appropriate. 11. Sri Kampani further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1981 E.L.T. 325). The case dealt with hypodermic clinical syringes made of glass. The Supreme Court held that though they were articles made of glass and may, therefore, fall under the expression 'glassware', such syringes would never in commercial sense be called glassware and a general merchant dealing in glassware would not ordinarily ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sealed to prevent re-entry of air. Item 55 deals with vacuum flasks and parts. Item 55(2) relates specifically to parts of vacuum flasks. It is in these circumstances, that finished liner were classified under item 55(2) and not under item 23A(4). Hence no reliance can be placed on the said notification as supporting the present case of the respondent. 13. Sri Kampani further contended that a mirror would be a composite item, as had been held in the case of chrome coated glass and for that reason also it would fall outside item 23A(4), But for the reasons already stated, this argument also is not acceptable. 14. In the appeal memorandum reference has been made to the Indian Trade Classification-Revision 2, in which under g....