ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC.

A


              ATIJL Gl,ASS INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. ETC.
                                        v.
               COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC.
B
                                JULY 10, 1986

            [R.S. PATHAK & SABYASACHI MUKHARJI JJ.]

          Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-First Schedule, Tariff Item
    Nos. 23A(4), 34A and 68--'Glass or Glass ware-Interpretation of-
c   Glass mirrors--Glass Screens used in motor Vehicles-Classification of.

          The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and sel-
    ling glass mirrors. Before March I, 1979 glass mirrors were treated as
    exempt from duty as they were manufactured from duty paid glass.
D   This exemption was cancelled from March I, 1979 and in Tariff Item
    23A(4) the words 'other glass and glass ware' were substituted for the
    words 'other glass ware'.

          On January 28, 1980, the Excise Authorities issued a notice calling
    upon the appellant to take out an L-4 Licence on the ground that glass
E   mirrors were classifiable as 'other glass' within the meaning of Tariff
    Entry No. 23A(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt
    Act, 1944, as a product dutiable from March I, 1979.

          The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and simul-
    tanP-ously preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The High
F   Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the appel-
    lant should pursue its appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The appeal
    was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) holding that Tariff Item No. 68
    applied to glass mirrors.

          On appeal by the Revenue, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Con-
G   trol) Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Collector (Appeals)
    and held that Tariff Item No. 23A(4) was attracted, and that the glass
    mirrors should be classified as 'glass ware'.

           In the transferred cases, the manufacturers of motor vehicles
    place orders with the petitioner for the manufacture of screens for
H   fitting in motor vehicles, commonly known as wind screens, rear
             ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR                  127

 screens, door screens, and these were to be manufactured according to      A
the specific shapes and measurements indicated in the orders for the
different vehicles.

      The Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the petitioner
to pay excise duty on the basis that these screens fell under Tariff Item
                                                                            B
No. 23A(4) relating to 'glass and glass ware'. The petitioner tiled writ
petitions in the High Court_ challenging the view taken by the Excise
Authorities.

     On the questions: "Whether glass mirrors fall under Tariff Item
No. 23A( 4) or Tariff Item No. 68 and whether glass screens fitted in
motor vehicles as wind screen, rear screens and window screens fall         c
under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item No.
68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944",
allowing the Appeal and the Writ Petitions in the transferred cases, the
Court,
                                                                            D
      HELD: (I) Glass mirrors cannot be classified as 'other glass and
glass ware' set forth in Tariff Item No. 23A(4), and must therefore fall
under the residuary Tariff Item No. 68. l 132F-G I

       (2) The original glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation
when it emerges as a glass mirror. What was a piece of glass simp-
                                                                            E
liciter has now become a commercial product with a reflecting surface.
Into the process of transformation have gone successive stages of pro-
cessing. The evolved product is completely different from the original
glass sheet. What was once a glass piece in its basic character has no
longer remained so. It has been reduced to a mere medium. That is
clear if regard is had to the fundamental function and qualities of a
                                                                            F
glass mirror. The power to reflect an image is a power derived not from
the glass piece but principally from the silvering and other processes
applied to the glass medium. If any part of the coating is scratched and
removed, that particular area of the glass mirror will cease to be glass
mirror. That simple test demonstrates the major importance attribut-
able to the chemical deposit and coating which constitute a material
                                                                            G
component of a glass mirror. It is not mandatory that a mirror emp-
loyed for the purpose of reflecting an image should have a glass base.
Copper mirrors have been known from the dawn of history. Now ac-
rylic sheets are sometimes used instead of glass for manufacturing mir-
rors. Therefore, a glass mirror cannot be regarded as a glass. For the
same reason, it cannot be classified as a 'glass ware', for 'glass ware'
                                                                            H
    128                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A   means merchandise made of glass and understood in its primary sense
    as a glass article. A glass bowl, a glass vase, a glass tumbler, a glass
    table top and so on are all articles in which the primary component is
    glass. They are nothing more and nothing less. Any treatment of an
    ornamental nature applied to such articles does not derogate from their
B   fundamental character as glass articles. It is quite the contrary in the
    caseofaglassmirror. ll32H; 133A-FJ

          (3) It is a matter of common experience that the identity of an
    article is associated with its primary function. It is only logical that it
    should be so. When a consumer buys it, it is because it performs a
    specific function for him. There is a mental association in the mind of
c   the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life. It is
    the functional character of the article which identifies it in his mind. In
    the case of a glass mirror, the consumer recalls primarily the reflective
    function of the article more than anything else. It is a mirror, an article
    which reflects images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the
D   word glass is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a
    medium for manufacturing the mirror. The basic or fundamental
    character of the article lies in its being a mirror. [134C-EJ

          State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] (l)
    S.C.R. 837, Porritts and Spencers (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
E   [1978[ (42) S.T.C. 433, Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. Macneill &
    Barry Ltd. Kanpur, [1985] (2) SCALE 1093, Delhi Cloth and General
    Mills Co. Ltd. v, State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1980] (3) S.C.R.1109,
    Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [1985]
    (22) E.L.T.3, Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and
    Others_. (1985) 3 S.C.C. 284 and Indo International Industries v. Com-
F   missioner of Sales Tax. Uttar Pradesh, [1981) (3) S.C.R. 294 relied
    upon.

         State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. [1974) (33)
    S.T.C. 333 and State of Orissa v. Janta Medical Stores [1976) (37)
    S.T.C. 33approved.
G
          Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Banaras Bead Manufactur-
    ing Co. [1970](25) S.T.C. 100 distinguished.

          (4) Classification of glass mirrors as 'glass and glass ware' in
    Chapter 70 of the Brnssels Tariff Nomenclature, does not advance the
H   case of the Revenue, because the First Schedule to the Central Excises
                  ATULGLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR                    129

r   and Salt Act was not modelled on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature.            A
    1;here is nothing to show that the Tariff Items were classified in the
    Schedule on the basis of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. It was when
    the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was enacted that the First Schedule to that
    Act was framed in accordance with the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature.
    The glass mirrors were still not specifically mentioned under the
    Customs Tariff Act 1975. They are now being brought in as such by the         B
    Customs TariffBill 1985. [135E-H]
I         (5) Classification of glass mirrors by the Indian Standards lostitu·

t   tion as "glass and glass ware" in its glossary of terms furnishes a piece
    of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has been treated
    for the purpose of the specifications laid down by the Indian Standard        c
    Institution. [136A-B]

~         (6) The screens used in motor vehicles cannot be described as
    "glass or glass wares" under Tariff Item No. 23A(4). No one dealing in
    or using the screens would consider them as "glass or glass ware".
    They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts. Even if it is as-         D
    sumed that they could fall under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) relating to
    "glass and glass ware" also, in as much as Tariff Item No. 34A is a
    special entry and Tariff Item No. 23A( 4) is a general entry, the special
    must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No. 34A
    which prevails and is attracted. [138F-H]
                                                                                  E
          (7) After the amendment of Tariff Item No. 34A by the Finance
    Act 1979 the scope of that Tariff Item is restricted to the 15 commodities
    specified therein. That being so the screens manufactured by the petitioner
    merit classification in the residuary Tariff Item No. 68. [138H; 139A-B I

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3435                     F
    of 1984 etc.
         From the Order dated 24.7.1984 of the Customs, Excise and
    Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. ED/
    SB/A.664/84-D.
                                                                                  G
         K.K. Venugopal, Soli J. Sorabji, Bishambar Lal, H.K. Kochar
    LL. Beri, P.K. Chatterjee, Rajesh Agarwal and Aron Kr Sinha for
<   the Appellants.

          G. Das, A. Subhashini, P .P. Singh, C. V. Sobba Rao and
    Sushma Ratha for the Respondents.                                             H
    130                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PATHAK, J. The question raised in the appeal filed by Atul Glass
    Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (C.A. No. 3435 of 1984) under s. 35L(b) of the
    Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is whether glass mirrors fall under
B   Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to
    the Central Excises and Salt Act.

          That is also the question raised in the Transferred Cases Nos.
    349, 350 and 355 of 1983 filed by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works
    Ltd., with an additional question whether the glass screens fitted in
    motor vehicles as wind screens, rear screens and window screens fall
c   under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item
    No.68.                                        '1

          The Appellant, Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., carries on the
    business of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors. It purchases duty
D   paid glass sheets from the manufacturers of glass, and either in their
    original size or after reducing them to smaller sizes puts the glass
    sheets through a process of treatment. The glass pieces are buffed with
    the aid of buffing machines in order to improve the surface of the glass
    and prepare it for mirror processing. The glass is fed into an automatic
    silvering conveyor line where it passes through a stage of mechanical
E
    cleaning and polishing with the aid of nylon bristle brushes so that the
    glass surface is rendered free of scratches, dust particles and carbohy-
    drates. The glass is then washed mechanically with the aid of cylindri-
    cal brushes using distilled water as a washing medium. Thereafter the
    glass surface is sensitised by chemical compounds such as stannous
    chloride, and rinsed with distilled or demineralised water to remove
F   excess of chemicals. The sensitised glass is passed through a chamber
    where silver in liquid form with the aid of reducing solutions is applied
    as a very thin and uniform adherent reflective film on the surface of
    the glass. The silver coating, being of malleable metal, is protected by
    a coating of copper in the form of a thin metal deposit with the aid of
    an electromagnetic spray system. The excess of copper and acidic solu-
    tions are rinsed away with the distilled or demineralised water. Subse-
G
    quently hot air is employed for the purpose of drying, and the humidity
    is removed completely with the aid of an infra-red heating system.
     After thorough drying, the silver and copper coatings are protected
    with four coats of special mirror backing paint applied with the aid of a
    roller coating machine in four stages. The paint is baked in the baking
H   conveyor after thorough drying. The other side of the mirror is
             ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR [PATHAK, l.]           131
                                                                                  A
T    mechanically cleaned. The mirror thus produced is finally sent for
     quality control inspection. Cut glass is employed in the case of decora-
     tive mirrors. The cut glass is shaped with the aid of cutting lathe-
     machines before subjecting it to the silver process. Edge grinding or
     bevelling and hole-drilling is done, if required, after the mirror has
     been manufactured.                                                           B
            Before the budget of 1979, Tariff Item No. 23 relating to 'glass
     and glass-ware' prescribed the different rates of duty in respect of ( 1)

l    sheet glass and plate glass, (2) laboratory glass-ware, (3) glass shells,
     glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern, and (4) 'other glass-
     ware including table-ware'. During the period following the budget of
     1979 which is the period which concerns us, Tariff Item No. 23A              c
     relating to glass and glass-ware specified the rates of duty in respect of
     ( 1) flat glass, which included sheet glass, wired glass and rolled glass
+    whether in the form of plate glass, figured glass or in any other form,
     (2) laboratorty glass-ware, (3) glass shells, glass globes and chimney
     for lamps and lantern and (4) 'other glass and glass-ware including          D
     table-ware'. Tariff Item No. 68 is of residuary character and relates to
     "all other goods not elsewhere specified," but excluding alcohol,
     opium and certain other goods specified therein. The rate of duty is
     higher if the product falls under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) than if it fell
     under Tariff Item No. 68. The appellant submitted a classification list
     showing glass mirror as covered by duty under Item No. 68. Before
                                                                                  E
     March 1, 1979 glass mirrors were treated as exempt from duty as they
     were manufactured from duty paid glass. The exemption was cancelled
     from March 1, 1979. Simultaneously Tariff Item No. 23A(4) under-
     went an amendment, as mentioned earlier, by the substitution of
I    words 'other glass and glass-ware' for the words 'other glass-ware'.
\                                                                                 F
           On January 28, 1980 the Excise Authorities issued a notice cal-
~    ling upon the appellant to take out an L-4 Licence on the ground that
     glass mirrors were classifiable as 'other glass' within the meaning of
     Tariff Entry No. 23A( 4) as a product now dutiable from March 1,
     1979. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and
     simultaneously preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals).           G
     The High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the
     question of liability to duty on its merits, observing that the appellant
.(   should pursue its appeal before the Collector (Appeals). On January
     24, 1984 the appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). He held
     that Tariff Item No. 68 applied to glass mirrors. The Revenue ap-
     pealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.         H
    132                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A   The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and reversed the decision
    of the Collector (Appeals) holding that Tariff Item No. 23A(4) was
                                                                                  i
    attracted. The Appellate Tribunal held that glass mirrors should be
    classified as 'glass ware'. And now this appeal.

B         It appears from the record before us that the true classification of
    glass mirrors has been the subject of fluctuating opinion among the
                                                                                  \
    higher echelons of the Revenue. Opinion has varied from time to time.
    Tariff Advice No. 60 of 1979 dated December 18, 1979 issued by the

                                                                                  ~
    Central Board of Excise and Customs took the stand that glass mirrors
    could be described as glass ware and therefore, merited classification
    under Tariff Item No. 23A(4). Subsequently on doubts being raised
c   regarding such classification, the Central Board of Excise and Customs
    considered the matter further, and by Tariff Advice No. 61 of 1980
    dated September 27, 1980 opined that glass mirrors would fall under
    Tariff Item No. 68 in as much as while glass sheets were used as raw          t
    material the subsequent processing applied thereto gave rise to a diffe-
D   rent commercial product altogether, the utility of the glass being
    reduced to a mere medium. This was, of course, subject to the condition
    that the glass sheets, out of which the glass mirrors were prepared, had
    paid appropriate duty under Tariff Item No. 23A before being emp-
    Joyed in the manufacture of mirrors. The controversy was re-opened
    later, and the Central Board of Excise and Customs reverted to its
E   original understanding of the classification for the product. By Tariff
    Item No. 41 of 1981 dated May 7, 1981 it pointed out that glass mir-
    rors had been classified under the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature as
    "glass and glass-ware" and taking the view that after undergoing
    silvering a glass mirror still remained glass it advised that glass mirrors
    should be treated as liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 23A( 4)          \
    as 'other glass and glass-ware'. It has been noticed that the Superinten-         /
F
    dent of Central Excise called upon the appellant to take out an L-4
    Licence on the footing that glass mirrors fell under Tariff Item No.              •
    23A(4), that on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) reached the conclu-
    sion that it was not open to such classification but fell under the re-
    siduary Tariff Item No. 68, and that the Appellate Tribunal thereafter
G   reversed the Collector (Appeals) and upheld the Superintendent of
    Central Excise. It is in this uncertain climate of opinion that the ques-
    tion calls for decision by this Court.

          A broad description of the process through which a glass sheet
    passes has been detailed earlier. It indicates clearly to our mind that
H   the original glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation when it
             ATULGLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR [PATHAK, J.l             133
                                                                       A
r now
  emerges as a glass mirror. What was a piece of glass simpliciter has
      become a commercial product with a reflecting surface. Into the
      process of transformation have gone successive stages of processing
      with the aid of chemicals such as stannous chloride, silver nitrate and
     copper coating besides an entire range of physical proscesses involving
      polishing, washing, coating, drying, varnishing, evaporation and cool-       B
     ing. The evolved product is completely different from the original glass
l    sheet. What was once a glass piece in its basic character has no longer
      remained so. It has been reduced to a mere medium. That is clear if

I     regard is had to the fundamental function and qualities of a glass
      mirror. The power to reflect an image is a power derived not from the
     glass piece but principally from the silvering and other processes ap-
      plied to the glass medium. If any part of the coating is scratched and
                                                                                   c
      removed, that particular are·a of the glass mirror will cease to be glass
      mirror. That simple test demonstrates the major importance attribut-
~-   able to the chemical deposit and coating which constitute a material
      component of a glass mirror. It is not mandatory that a mirror em-
      ployed for the purpose of reflecting an image should have a glass base.      D
     Copper mirrors have been known from the dawn of history. In the
     modern age, acrylic sheets are sometimes used instead of glass for
     manufacturing mirrors. It is apparent, therefore, that a glass mirror
     cannot be regarded as a glass. For the same reason, it cannot be
     classified as 'glass ware', for 'glass ware' means merchandise made of
     glass and understood in its primary sense as a glass article. A glass         E
     bowl, a glass vase, a glass tumbler, a glass table-top and so on are all
     articles in which the primary component is glass. They are nothing
     more and nothing less. Any treatment of an ornamental nature applied
     to such articles does not derogate from their fundamental character as
/    glass articles. It is quite the contrary in the case of a glass mirror. The

,.
\    case is more akin to that of carbon paper. A sheet of paper with a
     carbon coating thereon is employed for the purpose of producing
     copies of the original. The paper is a mere base while the function is
     performed by the carbon coating. This Court held in State of Uttar
                                                                                   F



     Pradesh v. Mis Kores (India).Ltd. [1977) (1) S.C.R. 837, that carbon
     paper could not be described as paper. It referred to the functional
     difference between the two, and pointed out that while paper would be         G
     understood as meaning a substance which was used for writing or print-
     ing or drawing on or for packing or decorating or covering the walls.
~    carbon paper, which is manufactured by coating the tissue paper with a
     thermosetting ink based mainly on wax, non drying oils,. pigments and
     dyes could not be so described.
                                                                                   H
    134                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A         The test commonly applied to such cases is: How is the product
    identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the
                                                                                   T
    product? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not
    contain any definition. Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of
    Haryana [1978] (42) S.T.C. 433. It is generally by its functional charac-
B   ter that a product is so identified. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P.
    v. Macneill & Barry Ltd., Kanpur 11985] (2) SCALE 1093. This Court
    expressed the view that ammonia paper and ferro paper, used for
    obtaining prints and sketches of site plans could not be,described as          '

c
    paper as that word was used in common parlance. On the same basis
    the Orissa High Court held in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Dluplicators
    (P) Ltd. [1974] (33) S.T.C. 333 that stencil paper could not be clas-
    sified as paper for the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It is a
                                                                                   J
    matter of common experience that the identity of an article is asso-
    ciated with its primary function. It is only logical that it should be so.
    When a consumer buys an article, he buys it because it performs a              .~
    specific function for him. There is a mental association in the mind of
    the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life. It
D
    is the functional character of the article which identified it in his mind.
    In the case of a glass mirror, the consumer recalls primarily the reflec-
    live function of the article more than anything else. It is a mirror, an
    article which reflects images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only
    because ti)e word glass is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has
E   been used as a medium for manufacturing the mirror. The basic or
    fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror. It was
    observed by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v.
    State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1980] (3) S.C.R. 1109. Which was a case
     under the Sales Tax law:

                "In determining the meaning or connotation of words and
F                                                                                  (
                expressions describing an article or commodity the turnover
                of which is taxed in a sales tax enactment, if there is one        r-
                principle fairly well-settled it is that the words or expression
                must be construed in the sense in which they are understood
                in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who
                are concerned with it, and it is the sense in which they under-
G
                stand it that consitutes the definitive index of the legislative
                intention when the statute was enacted."
                                                                                   ).
          That was also the view expressed in Geep Flashlight Industries
     Ltd. v. Union of India and Others. [19851) (22) E.L.T. 3. Where the
H    goods are not marketable that principle of construction is not attract-
          ATULGLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR [PATHAK, J.J          135

ed. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of' India and Others.             A
[1985]) (3) S.C.C. 284. The question whether thermometers, lactomet-
ers, syringes, eye-wash glasses and measuring glasses could be des-
cribed as 'glass ware' for the purpose of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947
was answered by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Jania
Medical Stores [19761) (37) S.T.C. 33. In the negative. To the same         B
effect is the decision of this Court in Indo International Industries v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, I1981] (3) S.C.R. 294.
Where hypodermic clinical syringes were regarded as falling more
accurately under the entry relating to "hospital equipment and ap-
paratus" rather than under the entry which related to "glass wares" in
the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
                                                                            c
      Reliance was placed by the Revenue on Commissioner of Sales
 Tax, U.P. v. Banaras Bead Manufacturing Co. [19701) (25) S.T.C. JOO.
Where the Allahabad High Court held that glass beads could be de-
scribed as 'glass ware for the purpose of a Notification issued under the
U.P. Sales Tax Act. The decision of the High Court rested on the
                                                                            D
manner in which the contextual setting was altered in successive and
different Notifications promulgated under the U.P. Sales Tax Act,
indicating the content of the expression as developed through succes-
sive Notifications.

      Our attention has been drawn on behalf of the Revenue to the
                                                                            E
circumstance that glass mirrors have been classified as 'glass and glass
ware' in Chapter 70 of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. It seems to us
that this circumstance can hardly advance the case of the Revenue,
because the First Schedule to the Central Execises and Salt Act does
not appear to have been modelled on the Brussels Tariff Nomencla-
ture. There is nothing to show that the Tariff Items were classified in
                                                                            F
the Schedule on the basis of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. It was
when the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was enacied that the First Schedule
to that Act was framed in accordance with the Brussels Tariff Nomen-
clature, evidently because the progress made in industrial growth and
economic development, and the substantial changes in the composi-
tion and pattern of India's external trade called for the need to moder-
                                                                            G
nise and rationalise the nomenclature of India's Tariff in line with
contemporary conditions1 • The glass mirrors were still not specifically
mentioned under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They are now being
brought in as such by the Customs Tariff Bill, 1985.

t. (Introductory Comments on the Customs Tariff Act, 1975).
                                                                            H
    136                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1986] 3 S.C.R.
A         It is pointed out that glass mirrors have been classified by the
    Indian Standards Institution as "glass and glass ware" in the glossary
    of terms prepared by it in respect of that classification. That, to our
    mind, furnishes a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the
    product has been treated for the purpose of the specifications laid
B   down by the Indian Standards Institution. It was a test employed by
    this Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, 11963]
    Supp. (!) S.C.R. 586, but was regarded as supportive material only of
    the expert opinion furnished by way of evidence in that case. The
    considerations to which we have adverted should, in our opinion, have
    greatly weighed in deciding the question raised in this appeal. So also
    in Union Carbide Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and
c   Others, 11978] E.L.T. 180, the description set forth in the publications
    of the Indian Standards Institution was regarded as a piece of evidence
    only. There were other more tangible considerations which weighed
    with the Court in reaching its conclusions.

D         We are firmly of the view that glass mirrors cannot be classified
    as 'other glass and glass ware' set forth in Tariff Item No. 23A(4), and
    must therefore fall under the residuary Tariff Item No. 69 ..

          An additional point arises in Mis Hindustan Safety Glass Works
    Ltd. (Transfer Cases Nos. 349, 350 and 355 of 1983). The manufactur-
E   ers of motor vehicles place orders with the appellant for the manu-
    facture of screens for fitting in motor vehicles. They are commonly
    known as wind screens, rear screens and door screens. The screens are
    manufactured according to the specific shape and measurements indi-
    cated in the orders, for different vehicles require screens of different
    shapes and measurements. The screen is manufactured from sheet
F   glass. It is first given shape and size according to the specifications
    contained in the order and thereafter subjected to the process of
    toughening. It is a fabricated article.

          Tbe Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the petitioner
    to pay excise duty on the basis that the screens fell under Tariff Item
G   No. 23A(4) relating to 'glass and glass ware'. The petitioner filed writ
    petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the view taken by
    the Excise authorities. The question in these cases is whether the
    screens manufactured by the petitioners can be classified under Tarjff
    Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item No. 68.

H         Prior to February 28, 1979 Tariff Item No. 34A, which was
           ATULGLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR [PATHAK, J.J             137

    headed Item No. 34A-Motor Vehicle Parts, related to "Parts and               A
    accessories not elsewhere specified, of Motor vehicles and Tractors,
    including Trailers", and the rate of duty prescribed was 20% ad val-
    orem. Under Rule 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, the Central
    Government issued Notification No. M.F. (D.R.I) 99/71 dated May
    29, 1971, as amended by a subsequent Notification, exempting parts           B
    and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item
    No. 34A other than those specified in the Schedule annexed to the
    Notification, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.

l   The Schedule annexed to the Notification did not mention the screens
    manufactured for motor vehicles. The parts and accessories specifi-
    cally mentioned in the Notification to the Schedule were covered by a
    Notification No. 101/71 C.E. dated May 29, 1971 as amended subse-            c
    quently, by which the Central Government exempted under Rule 8
    parts and accessories of motor vehicles, provided it was establishd to
    the satisfaction of the Collector of Central Excise that the parts were
    intended to be used as original equipment parts by the manufacturers
    of motor' vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item No. 34A. The
                                                                                 D
    Finance Bill of 1979 introduced changes in Tariff Item No. 34A. Tariff
    Item No. 34A now spoke of 'parts and accessories of motor vehciles
    and tractors, including trailers, the folowing namely'.-and here fol-
    lowed 15 parts and accessories. The screens manufactured by the
    petitioner did not figure in that list. Until the enactment of the Finance
    Bill of 1979, the commodities manufactured by the petitioner would
                                                                                 E
    have fallen within the ambit of Tariff Item No. 34A. But after the
    introduction of the Finance Bill 1979 the Central Government issued
    Notification No. 76 of 1979 C.E. dated March 1, 1979 under Rule 9,
    whereby parts and accessories of moto~ vehicles and .tractors which
                                                                          -
    had not been specified in Tariff Item No. 34A but which fell under that
    Tariff Item were exempted from so much duty of excise leviable there-
                                                                                 F
    on as was in excess of 8% ad valorem. Two more Notifications were
    issued, No. 74/79 C.E. dated March, 1 1979 and No. 75/79 C.E. dated
    March 1, 1979. By these Notifications parts and accessories of motor
    vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item No. 34A were exempted
    from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon provided the said
    parts or accessories were intended to be used in the manufacture of
                                                                                 G
    assembled components of motor vehicles and tractors and such assemb-
    led components were used as original equipment parts by the manu-
<   facturers of those vehicles and such parts and accessories which were
    intended to be used as original equipment parts by such manufactur-
    ers. On the enforcement of the Finance Act 1979 the ambit of Tariff
    Item No. 34A became restricted to the 15 specified commodities. The          H
    138                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A   commodities manufactured by the petitioner did not fall within the
    ambit of Tariff Item No. 34A.
           It is case of the petitioner that the commodities manufactured by
    it fall within the ambit of the residuary Item No. 68 of the First
    Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. Prior to the enforcement
B   of the Finance Act, 1979 the Central Government had, under Rule 8,
    issued Notification No. 166 C.E. -dated April 19, 1979 whereby all
    excisable goods on which the duty of excise was payable and in the
    manufacture of which parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling
    under Item No. 34A had been used were exempted from so much of
    the duty of the excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of
c   excise paid by the said parts and accessories. Another Notification No.
    167 /79 dated April 19, 1979 was issued under Rule 3 whereby parts and
    accessories of motor vehicles falling under Item No. 34A and intended
    for use in further manufacture of excisable goods were exempted from
    the whole of duty leviable thereon provided that the intended use was
    in a factory of a manufacturer different from the factory in which the
D   said parts and accessories had been manufactured. The Notifications
    did not apply to the 15 specified items. Subsequently the two Notifica-
    tions were amended by Notification No. 187/79 C.E. dated May 10,
     1979 by deleting the reference to Tariff Item No. 34A and substituting
    for it Tariff Item No. 68. According to the petitioner the result of these
    successive Notifications is that the parts and accessories of motor vehi-
E   cles fall under Tariff Item No. 34A prior to the enforcement of Finance
    Act 1979 and after the enforcement of that Act they fall under Tariff
    Item No. 68 provided that the parts and accessories of motor vehicles
    do not find mention in Tariff Item Na. 34A as amended by the Finance
     Act, 1979.

F         Upon the tests and having regard to the foregoing considerations
    which have appealed to us when considering the proper classification
    of glass mirrors, we have no hesitation in holding that the screens
    cannot be described as "glass or glass wares" under Tariff Item No.
    23A(4). No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as
    "glass or glass ware". They can only be considered as motor »ehicle
    parts. Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item No.
G
    23A(4) relating to 'glass and glass ware' also, inasmuch as Tariff Item
    No. 34A is a special entry and Tariff Item No. 23A(4) is a general
    entry, the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is
    Tariff Item No. 34A which prevails and is attracted.

H         It is clear, however, that after the amendment of Tariff Item No.
         ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES v. THE COLLECTOR [PATHAK, J. J          139

34A by the ·Finance Act 1979 the scope of that Tariff Item is restricte<;I   A
to the 15 commodities specified therein. That being so the screens
manufactured by the petitioner merit classification in the residuary
Tariff Item No. 68.

      In the; result, Civil Appeal No. 3435 of 1984 is allowed, the order
dated July 24, 1984 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appel-         B
late Tribunal is set aside and the Order dated January 24, 1984 of the
Collector (Appeals) is restored. In the Transfer Cases, we allow the
writ petitions and direct that the glass mirrors and screens manu-
factured by the petitioner be treated to excise duty in the light of the
observations made by us. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                             c
A.P.J.                                    Appeal and Petitions allowed.