FORBES GOKAK LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 26-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FORBES GOKAK LTD. 
V. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD 
FEBRUARY 26, 2003 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Headings 70.15 and 84.80: 
Classification-Principles of-'Glass Mould with Plastic Gasket '-Held, 
C since plastic gasket only holds the male and female moulds together, it can not 
give essential characteristics of the product which is used in the manufacture 
of opthalmic lenses-The product mainly consists of glass used/or casting of 
lenses-Merely because lenses may be of glass the product cannot be classified· 
as mould/or glass-Hence the product is appropriately classifiable under the 
D Heading 70.15 as other articles of glasses and not under the heading 84.80 
as product is not used for moulding articles of glasses-Interpretation of 
Schedule of the Excise Tariff-Rules I to 4. 
Words & Phrases: 
E 
'Glass Mould' and 'Mould/or glass'-Meaning in the context o/Central 
Excise Tariff Act. 
Appellant-assessee had been manufacturing glass moulds and gaskets 
used for manufacture of opthalmic lenses. Revenue classified the product 
under Chapter heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and levied 
F excise duty thereon. On appeal, Customs Excise and Gold (Control) 
Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Revenue. Hence these 
appeals. 
It was contended for the Revenue that since assessee were 
manufacturing and consuming glass mould product for manufacture of 
G opthalmic lenses, it is rightly classifiable under Chapter heading 70.15 of 
the Central Excise Tariff Act. 
On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that the product was 
classifiable under the heading 84.80 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for 
H which there was an exemption notification. 
348 
I 
FORBES GOKAK LTD. v. C.C.E. 
349 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The glass moulds in question are covered by plastic 
gasket. As per the Rules for Interpretation of Tariff Items, a product which 
is made up of different components and goods put up in sets, which cannot 
A 
be classified by reference to rule 2(a), are to be classified as if they 
consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential B 
character. In the present case, plastic gasket cannot give the essential 
character of glass moulds which are used for the purpose of manufacture 
of opthalmic lenses. Plastic gasket only holds the male and female moulds 
together. (355-F-H] ' 
1.2. Glass mould is used for manufacture of opthalmic lenses. Merely C 
because lenses may be of glass, it cannot be said that the product is mould 
for glass. As per Rule 3(a), the heading which provides most specific 
description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general 
description. Heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act would 
specifically cover the product which is mainly consisting of glass as 'other 
article of glass'. (356-8-C) 
D 
1.3. Chapter 84 excludes ceramic articles and parts thereof, 
laboratory glassware, machinery and appliances and parts thereof, of 
glass, that means even if a machine or mechanical appliance is covered 
by a heading of Chapter 84 by its description or nature, the item is not to 
be classified therein if it has the character of an article of ceramic material E 
or of glass. Further, heading 84.80 covers moulds used by hand or in 
machines for moulding certain materials like moulds for glass, moulds for 
mineral materials and moulds for rubber or plastics. The product in 
question-'glass mould' is not for moulding such articles of glass. 
(359-F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1141of1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1994 of the Central Excise, 
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/139/ 
94-D in F.O. No. 422 of 1994-D. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 7086/99, 2366-2367 and 4384 of 2001. 
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, A.M. Setalwad, Y.F. 
F 
G 
Godrej, D.B. Shroff, Ms. Sophia Bawan, Ms. Puja Shanna, Rajan Narain, K. 
Swami, D.N. Ray, Hemant Shanna and B. Krishna Prasad for the appearing . 
parties. 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. CIVIL APPEAL No.14I l OF I995. 
By judgment and order dated 28th October, 1994, in Appeal No.El 
139/94-D, Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 
B (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") arrived at the conclusion that 'Glass 
Moulds' along with plastic Gasket were class
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.