http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/07/1986

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1730            1986 SCR  (3) 126  1986 SCC  (3) 480        JT 1986    41  1986 SCALE  (2)15  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC 999  (14)

ACT:      Central Excises  and  Salt  Act,  1944-First  Schedule, Tariff Item  Nos. 23A(4),  34A and 68-’Glass Or Glass ware’- Interpretation of-Glass  mirrors-Glass Screens used in motor Vehicles-Classificaton of.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  carries on the business of manufacturing and selling  glass  mirrors.  Before  March  1,  1979  glass mirrors were  treated as  exempt  from  duty  as  they  were manufactured  from  duty  paid  glass.  This  exemption  was cancelled from  March 1,  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 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 1, 1979.      The appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court and simultaneously  preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation  that the appellant 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 (Control) 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  fitting  in  motor  vehicles, commonly known as wind screens, rear 127 screens, door  screens, and  these were  to be  manufactured according to  the specific shapes and measurements indicated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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 No. 23A(4) relating to ’glass and glass  ware’. The petitioner filed 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 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, ^      HELD: (1)  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. [132F-G]      (2) The  original  glass  sheet  undergoes  a  complete transformation when it emerges as a glass mirror. What was a piece of  glass simpliciter  has  now  become  a  commercial product with  a reflecting  surface.  Into  the  process  of transformation have  gone successive  stages of  processing. 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 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 attributable to the chemical deposit  and coating  which constitute  a  material component of  a glass  mirror. It  is not  mandatory that  a mirror employed  for the  purpose  of  reflecting  an  image should have  a glass  base. Copper  mirrors have  been known from the  dawn of  history. Now acrylic sheets are sometimes used instead  of glass for manufacturing mirrors. 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’ 128 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  fundamental character  as glass  articles. It is quite the  contrary in  the case  of a  glass mirror. [132H; 133A-F]      (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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

mirror, an  article which reflects images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the 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-E]      State of  Uttar Pradesh  v.  M/s.  Kores  (India)  Ltd. [1977] (1)  S.C.R. 837, Porritts and Spencers (Asia) Ltd. v. State of  Haryana [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.  Commissioner 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. 33 approved.      Commissioner  of   Sales  Tax,  U.P.  v.  Banaras  Bead Manufacturing Co. [1970] (25) S.T.C. 100 distinguished.      (4) Classification of glass mirrors as ’glass and glass ware’ in  Chapter 70  of the  Brussels Tariff  Nomenclature, does not  advance the case of the Revenue, because the First Schedule to the Central Excises 129 and Salt  Act  was  not  modelled  on  the  Brussels  Tariff Nomenclature. There 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 Customs Tariff Bill 1985. [135E-H]      (5) Classification  of  glass  mirrors  by  the  Indian Standards Institution  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 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 assumed 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]      (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]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3435 of 1984 etc.      From the  Order dated  24.7.1984 of the Customs, Excise and Gold  (Control) Appellate  Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

No. ED/SB/A.664/84-D.      K.K. Venugopal,  Soli J.  Sorabji, Bishambar  Lal, H.K. Kochar I.L.  Beri, P.K.  Chatterjee, Rajesh Agarwal and Arun Kr Sinha for the Appellants.      G. Das,  A. Subhashini,  P.P. Singh, C.V. Subba Rao and Sushma Ratha for the Respondents. 130      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 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 under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item No. 68.      The  Appellant,  Atul  Glass  Industries  (Pvt.)  Ltd., carries on  the business  of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors. It  purchases  duty  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 cleaning and polishing with  the aid of nylon bristle brushes so that the glass surface  is rendered free of scratches, dust particles and carbohydrates.  The glass  is then  washed  mechanically with the aid of cylindrical 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 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 solutions  are rinsed  away  with  the  distilled  or demineralised water.  Subsequently 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  conveyor  after thorough drying. The other side of the mirror is 131 mechanically cleaned.  The mirror  thus produced  is finally sent for  quality control  inspection. Cut glass is employed in the  case of  decorative mirrors. The cut glass is shaped with the  aid of  cutting lathemachines before subjecting it to the  silver process. Edge grinding or bevelling and hole- drilling is  done, if  required, after  the mirror  has been manufactured.      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) sheet  glass and  plate glass,  (2) laboratory glass-ware,  (3) glass  shells, glass  globes and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

chimney for  lamps and  lantern, and  (4)  ’other  glassware including  table-ware’.  During  the  period  following  the budget of 1979 which is the period which concerns us, Tariff Item No.  23A 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  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  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) underwent  an amendment, as mentioned earlier, by the substitution of  words ’other  glass and glass-ware’ 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 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). 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  appealed  to  the  Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 132 The Appellate  Tribunal allowed  the appeal and reversed the decision of the Collector (Appeals) holding that Tariff Item No. 23A(4)  was attracted.  The Appellate Tribunal held that glass mirrors  should be classified as ’glass ware’. And now this appeal.      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   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  material  the  subsequent processing  applied   thereto  gave   rise  to  a  different 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 employed in the manufacture of mirrors.  The controversy  was re-opened  later, and  the Central Board of Excise and Customs reverted to its original

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

understanding of  the classification  for  the  product.  By Tariff Item  No. 41 of 1981 dated May 7, 1981 it pointed out that glass  mirrors 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  Superintendent 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 conclusion that it was  not open  to such  classification but fell under the residuary  Tariff  Item  No.  68,  and  that  the  Appellate Tribunal thereafter  reversed the  Collector  (Appeals)  and upheld the  Superintendent of  Central Excise. It is in this uncertain climate  of opinion  that the  question 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 the original glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation when it 133 emerges as  a glass  mirror.  What  was  a  piece  of  glass simpliciter has  now 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 cooling. 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 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 attributable  to the chemical deposit and coating which constitute  a material component of a glass mirror. It is not  mandatory that  a mirror employed for the purpose of reflecting an image should have a glass base. 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  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  Pradesh v. M/s Kores (India) Ltd. [1977]  (1) S.C.R.  837, that carbon paper could not be described as paper. It referred to the functional difference

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

between the  two, and  pointed out that while paper would be understood as meaning a substance which was used for writing or printing  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. 134      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 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 character that a  product is  so identified.  In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.  v. Macneill & Barry Ltd., Kanpur [1985] (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 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 classified as paper for the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 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 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  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 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  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. 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  expressions describing  an  article  or           commodity the  turnover of  which is  taxed  in  a           sales tax  enactment, if  there is  one  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           understand 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. [1985]) (22) E.L.T. 3.  Where the goods are not marketable that principle of construction is not attract- 135 ed. Indian  Aluminium  Cables  Ltd.v.  Union  of  India  and Others.  [1985])   (3)  S.C.C.  284.  The  question  whether thermometers, lactometers,  syringes, eye-wash  glasses  and measuring glasses could be described 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. Janta Medical Stores [1976])  (37) S.T.C. 33. In the negative. To the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

effect is  the decision  of this Court in Indo International Industries v.  Commissioner of  Sales  Tax,  Uttar  Pradesh, [1981] (3)  S.C.R. 294.  Where hypodermic  clinical syringes were regarded  as falling  more accurately  under the  entry relating to  "hospital equipment  and apparatus" rather than under the  entry which  related to "glass wares" in the U.P. Sales Tax Act.      Reliance was  placed by  the Revenue on Commissioner of Sales  Tax,   U.P.  v.   Banaras  Bead   Manufacturing   Co. [1970])(25) S.T.C.  100. Where the Allahabad High Court held that glass  beads could  be described 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 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 successive Notifications.      Our attention  has been  drawn on behalf of the Revenue to the  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 Nomenclature. There 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, evidently because the progress made in industrial growth and economic development,  and the  substantial changes  in  the composition and pattern of India’s external trade called for the need  to modernise  and rationalise  the nomenclature of India’s Tariff  in line  with contemporary  conditions.  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. 136      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   down   by   the   Indian   Standards Institution. It  was a  test employed by this Court in Union of India  v. Delhi  Cloth &  General Mills, [1963] Supp. (1) 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 Others, [1978]  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.      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  M/s  Hindustan  Safety Glass Works  Ltd. (Transfer  Cases Nos.  349, 350 and 355 of 1983). The manufacturers of motor vehicles place orders with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

the appellant  for the manufacture 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 indicated in the  orders, for  different vehicles  require screens  of different   shapes   and   measurements.   The   screen   is manufactured from  sheet 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.      The Superintendent  of Central  Excise called  upon the petitioner to  pay excise duty on the basis that the screens fell under  Tariff Item  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  Tariff Item  No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 34A or Tariff Item No. 68.      Prior to  February 28,  1979 Tariff Item No. 34A, which was 137 headed Item  No. 34A-Motor  Vehicle Parts, related to "Parts and accessories  not elsewhere  specified, of Motor vehicles and Tractors,  including Trailers",  and the  rate  of  duty prescribed was  20% ad  valorem. 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 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. The Schedule annexed to the Notification did  not mention  the screens  manufactured for motor  vehicles.  The  parts  and  accessories  specifically mentioned in  the Notification  to the Schedule were covered by a  Notification No.  101/71 C.E.  dated May  29, 1971  as amended  subsequently,   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  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 followed 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 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  motor 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 thereon 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 assembled  components of  motor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

vehicles and  tractors and  such assembled  components  were used as  original equipment  parts by  the manufacturers  of those vehicles  and such  parts and  accessories which  were intended to  be used  as original  equipment parts  by  such manufacturers. On  the enforcement  of the  Finance Act 1979 the ambit of Tariff Item No. 34A became restricted to the 15 specified commodities. The 138 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 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 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 said parts   and   accessories   had   been   manufactured.   The Notifications did  not apply  to  the  15  specified  items. Subsequently  the   two  Notifications   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 vehicles 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  No. 34A as amended by the Finance Act, 1979.      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 vehicle parts.  Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item  No. 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.      It is  clear, however,  that  after  the  amendment  of Tariff Item No. 139 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.      In the  result,  Civil  Appeal  No.  3435  of  1984  is allowed, the  order dated  July 24,  1984  of  the  Customs, Excise and  Gold (Control)  Appellate Tribunal  is set aside and the  Order dated  January  24,  1984  of  the  Collector

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

(Appeals) is  restored. In  the Transfer Cases, we allow the writ petitions and direct that the glass mirrors and screens manufactured by  the petitioner be treated to excise duty in the light  of the observations made by us. The parties shall bear their own costs. A.P.J.                         Appeal and Petitions allowed. 140