Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Indo-Sw1Ss Synthetic Gem ... vs Collector Of Customs on 5 January, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1983ECR262D(TRI.-DELHI), 1983(12)ELT388(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. In this case, the appellants requested for reassessment of quartz cups (Silica Crucibles) under heading 69.03 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for refund of the entire countervailing duty, as against heading 70 CTA/ 23B(4) Central Excise Tariff originally applied. The lower authorities rejected their claim in pursuance of Madras Customs House Public Notice No. 214/77 saying that the goods had been correctly assessed and that, in fact, the countervailing duty should have been charged at still higher rates under Item 23A(4) CET.
2. The case was heard on 5-1-1983. Shri Arokiaswamy, on behalf of the appellants stated that prior to 1977 Silica Crucibles were assessed under Item 87 of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff which was a residuary (or not otherwise specified) item and no countervailing duty was charged even though Central Excise item 23A(4) existed even at that time. Later, when the New Customs Tariff Act, 1975 came into force, the Customs assessed these goods under heading 70 CTA and also started charging countervailing duty under item 23A(4) CET. He showed a sample of Quartz Cup and stated that Quartz was quite different from glass, that glass melted at 99°C temperature while Quartz could withstand temperature upto 1800°C and that the heading 69.03 which include Crucibles was more specific to cover the impugned goods. Later, after Shri Chatterjee had presented the Department's case, Shri Arokiaswamy conceded that by virtue of Chapter note 3 in heading 70 "Glass" was to be taken to extend to fused Quartz and fused Silica and that in view of this specific and statutory provision in the Tariff itself, assessment of Silica Crucibles under heading 70 for basic customs duty was correct. But he still argued that in the absence of a similar statutory note or explanation in Central Excise item 23A, fused Quartz could not automatically be treated as glass. He, therefore, requested that countervailing duty collected should be refunded in full. Shri Chatterjee countered this argument by saying that even in the absence of any explanation or note in item 23A CET it could be said that fused Qijartz and fused Silica were nothing but glass and, therefore, correctly chargeable to countervailing duty under item 23A(4) CET.
3. We have carefully considered the matter. Since Chapter note 3 in Chapter' 70 CTA gives an extended meaning to "Glass" so as to include fused Quartz and fused Silica therein, Quartz cups (Silica Crucibles) would be correctly assessable for basic customs duty under heading 70. They cannot, therefore, be classified under Chapter 69 which relates to Ceramic products. We have noted that during the arguments before us the appellants accepted this position. Their request for reassessment of basic customs duty under heading 69.03 CTA has, therefore, to be rejected. However, so far as countervailing duty is concerned, we find considerable force in the appellants plea. Since the position is that fused Quartz and fused Silica have to be considered as glass because of the extended meaning given to "Glass" by Chapter note 3 in the Customs Tariff Act itself. It would be logical to conclude that but for this Chapter note fused quartz and fused silica would not ordinarily be considered as glass and, therefore, in the absence of a corresponding note or explanation in the Central Excise Tariff, "Glass" in item 23A CET would not ordinarily include fused quartz or fused silica. Though Shri Chatterjee urged, on behalf of the Department, that fused silica is nothing but glass, he produced no evidence or literature to substantiate his argument. We have, therefore, to uphold the claim of the appellants so far as countervailing duty is concerned.
4. Accordingly, we reject the appellants claim in regard to the basic customs duty but allow it in regard to the countervailing duty. We direct that consequential refund be granted to the appellants.