M/S. S.G. GLASS WORKS PRIVATE LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 08-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. S.G. GLASS WORKS PRIVATE LTD. 
A 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 
NOVEMBER 8, 1994 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Section 35 A (2)-Notification No. 
329177 dated 26th November 1977-Exemption from payment of excise 
duty-Glassware produced by semi-automatic process-Benefit of 
exemption limited to such glassware in production of which molten glass C 
was taken in first mould and where compressed air was used-Use of 
compressed air is decisive of exemption irrespective of whether it was used 
at first or second mould 
Notification No. 329n7 was issued which granted partial exemption 
of excise duty over and above 18% ad-valorem to glassware produced D 
manually and 24o/o ad-valorem to glassware produced by semi-
automatic process. The appellant claimed that the glassware 
manufactured by it are covered under serial No.3 of Notification No. 
329n7 dated 26th November 1977. A show cause notice was issued to 
the appellant proposing to classify the goods under serial No. 1. In the 
reply, the appellant explained that the appellant used compressed air E 
and even through it was used in the second mould it did not make any 
difference and the goods were covered by Item No. 3. This explanation 
was accepted and the notice issued was cancelled. Fresh notice was 
issued u/s 35-A (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for review of the 
order cancelling the earlier notice. The Assistant Collector reviewed the F 
earlier order and held that the glassware manufactured by the 
appellant fell under Item 1 of the Notification as compressed air was 
not used in the first mould. The order was confirmed by the Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
The question of law that arose for consideration was whether the G 
glassware such as globes, chimneys, gallon screw jars, tumblers 
manufactured by the appellant manually was eligible to duty in the 
relevant year under serial No. 1 or 3 of the Table to the Notification No. 
329177. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
305 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD 1.1 The benefit under the Notification No. 329/77 dated 
26.11.77 has been given to the glassware produced by semi-automatic 
process. What is meant by semi-automatic process is further explained 
by limiting it to such glassware in the production of which the molten 
glass was taken in the first mould and where compressed air was used. 
But there is no indic&tion that the compressed air should have been 
B 
used in the first mould only. The use of the word 'where' before 
'molten glass' and 'compressed air' is significant. According to 
dictionary the word 'where' may mean 'place or situation'. In the 
context· it has been used it is not descriptive of any place but has been 
used in the sense of relation or situation. What the Notification 
contemplates is that if the glassware is manufactured by taking the 
C 
molten glass manually to the first mould then the compressed air or 
operated press is applied to it either in the first or second mould then it 
would be covered by the Not,ification. If the intention would have been 
to confine it to first mould when it was not necessary to use 'where' a 
second time. It is disjunctive 2nd has been used to denote the same 
.meani.ng, .namely, if in processing of ~t compressed air is used then it is 
D 
deemed to be a production by semi-automatic process. The notification 
· does not state tha_t this process should also be completed in the first 
mould. Therefore, it was the use of compressed air which was decisive 
of exemption irrespeetive of whether it was ·used at the first or the 
second mould. Consequently the glassware manufactured by the 
appellant was produced by semi-automatic process and is exigible to 
E ·duty under Serial No.t of Notification No. 329177. (308-B-H) 
F 
, 
Mis Navooaf) India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and (:ustoms, 
· JT (1994) 6 SC 89? distinguished. 
CIVIL: APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appea~ No. 2859of1986 
From the Order No. D.N. 444/85-D dated the 6th December 1985 of 
the c;ustoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 
(CEGA T) in Appeal No. ED (SB) (T) A No. l 700/81-D 
V.A. Bobde, A.K. Sanghi and S. Mudaliyarfor the Appellants. 
A.K. Ganguli, V.J. Francis, V.K. Verm11 and Sushma Suri for the 
G . Respondent. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
R.M. SAHAI, J. This appeal is directed against 

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