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

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 10-07-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ATIJL Gl,ASS INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. ETC. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC. 
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-
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. 
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 
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 
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-
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 
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 
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 
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 
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: (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-
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 
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 
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' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
128 
S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.