COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI versus M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 09-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAI 
A 
v. 
M/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD. 
MAY 9, 2006 
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act, 1944; Ss. 11-A, JJAB, JJAC, 35-L{b)/Central Excise 
Rules, 1944; Rules 9(2), 1 I (A), 11 (B) and 11 (CJ/Central Excise and Tariff 
Act, 1985; Tariff Headings 6901.90; 6906.09 and 6906.10: 
Classification-Tiles-Glazed/unglazed-Tariff Headings 6901.90 or 
6909.09 and 6906.10-Differential amount of excise duty-Levy of-Held: 
Merely because tiles are polished and having shiny look, they cannot be 
termed as glazed tiles-Polishing and glazing are distinct and separate 
processes-Glazed tiles could be produced when a coating of melted glass 
applied on the surface-Since no coating was done on the tiles in question, 
these cannot be termed as glazed tiles-Hence, Tribunal rightly held that the 
assessee is not liable to pay differential amount of duty-Since there was no 
suppression of facts, .:xtended period of limitation in terms of proviso to 
Section II A of the 1944 Act would not apply. 
The respondent manufactures ceramic tiles, polished and unpolished. 
Both categories of tiles were claimed by the assessce to be classifiable 
under the tariff heading 6901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the 
classification was approved by the Revenue. Later, the Revenue enquired 
into the matter and came to the conclusion that the polished and glossy 
B 
c 
D 
E 
tiles and classifiable under the heading 6906.10 and 6906.90 respectively 
F 
and liable for higher rate of excise duty. Accordingly, a demand notice 
was issued for recovery of the differential amount of duty on such tiles 
for a specified period. The Authorities confirmed the demand of differential 
amount of duty holding that the tiles manufactured by the assessee were 
glazed tiles within the meaning of Chapter sub-heading 6901.10 of the 
Act, and directed for recovery of differential amount of duty along with 
G 
interest under Section llAB of the Act and also imposed penalty on the 
assessee under Section lIAC of the Act read with Rule l 73Q(l) of the 
Central Excise Rules. The Authorities also ordered confiscation of plant/ 
Machinery etc. used in connection with the manufacture, production, 
storage and removal of the goods. Appeal against the order of the 
H 
133 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] Sl.JPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A authorities was allowed by the Tribunal holding that there was no 
suppression of facts and hence the extended period of limitation under 
the proviso to Section l lA of the Act would not apply. Hence the present 
appeal. 
B 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no dispute that the goods in question are 
classifiable under Chapter heading 69 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 
1985. However, sub-heading 69.05 is for unglazed tiles while sub-heading 
69.06 is for glazed tiles. Hence, if the assessee's tiles are unglazed, they 
would be classifiable under heading 69.05, but if glazed, would be 
classifiable under heading 69.06. [136-F) 
2.1. Simply because the tiles are polished or having a shiny look, 
they cannot become glazed tiles. The expression "glazed tiles" is used in 
common parlance in connection with tiles on which there is a coating of 
D 
melted glass. There is a clear distinction between glazing and polishing. 
E 
F 
The mere fact of polishing does not lead to the conclusion that the tiles 
are glazed. [136-G-H, 137-Al 
Encyclopedia of Science & Technology and Industrial Ceramic' by 
Felix Singer and Sonja S. Singer, referred to. 
2.2. It is clear that vitrification and glazing are two distinct and 
separate processes - the former being a process to which the ceramic 
body is subjected before it is made, while the latter is a process to which 
the said body is subjected after being made. Thus, polishing and glazing 
are distinct and separate processes. The assessee is not coating or applying 
substances on the tiles which it makes, and hence its tiles cannot be 
termed as 'glazed tiles'. Moreover, the Tribunal has held that there was 
no suppression. This being a finding of fact, it is not appropriate to 
interfere with the same in this appeal. On merits as well as limitation, 
the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. The proviso to Section I IA of 
G 
the Act will not apply in this case. [137-G-H, 138-D[ 
Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, (1989) 
40 EL T 276, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2728 of 
H

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