Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Indal Hydro Extrusions Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus. on 7 December, 2005 cites

The Collector Of Central ... vs M/S. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Etc on 10 March, 1997

In the Atul Glass Industry Ltd. (supra) case, it has been held that the identity of an article is associated with primary function and in the case of glass mirror the consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the article rather than anything else. Hence it was held that glass mirror cannot be treated as glass and glass article. Similarly screen for a motor vehicle cannot be treated as glass and glass article. Since the impugned item is actually bullet proof glass door or window with aluminium frame, going by the ratio of the Apex Court decisions cited by the learned Advocate, they are not wholly made of glass and hence they cannot be held as "articles of glass". A door can be made of different material, e.g. wooden door is known only as a door and not as "an article of wood". However the lower authorities had much hesitation in classifying the impugned goods as aluminium doors for the reason that the aluminium in the impugned goods is confined to frame and part of frame only. The contention of the appellants in their letter to Assistant Commissioner is that every window/door is broadly classified depending on the material of the outer irrespective of the filler material which can be glass, wood or metal. It has also been stated that the cost of filler material is practically low comparing to the frame. It was pointed out that the aluminium window in India is sold as aluminium window including glass under Central Excise Tariff Heading 76 only even though the window contains majority portion as glass, the glass being only the filler medium. After going through the contentions of the appellants, we feel that the impugned goods should be classified only as aluminum doors/windows as they can be more appropriately called as bullet proof glass doors/windows with aluminium frame rather than as glass article. Classification as Aluminium Doors is more apt, if not accurate, than as 'articles of glass'. Incidentally, it is not only doors/windows but their frame also have been classified under Heading 7610.10. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 40 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 October, 1976

____________________________________________________________________________________ The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a finding that the essential characteristic to the subject goods are imparted not by the aluminium case or the frame but by the bullet proof glass. He has also observed that for the above reason, the price of the imported goods appears to be quite high. He has also stated that the bullet proof doors and windows in the common parlance are not known as aluminium doors or windows. In view of the above reason, the lower authorities have rejected the classification Heading 76.10. We have examined the case laws cited by the appellants. The Apex Court while dealing with the classification of Plastic torches in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that Articles made of plastic means article made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastics and not articles made from plastics along with other material. The Apex Court decided that the classification of plastic torches cannot be covered under Item 15 A(2) and it can be covered only under residuary item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 79 - A N Ray - Full Document

Wiltech India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 March, 1995

It has been held that an expression used in taxing statute for describing a commodity, it is generally given to a person in the trade or in the market of commodity and in the sense the person conversant with the subject matter of statute and dealing with it would attribute to it. In the Which India Ltd. (supra) case, the Apex Court held that Plastic razor is not wholly made of plastic but of plastic and iron rods not treatable as made wholly from plastic, hence it cannot be treated as "articles of plastic".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1