REAL OPTICAL CO. versus APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 23-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
REAL OPTICAL CO. 
v. 
J 
APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND 
S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Excise Laws : 
)-
c 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : 
Rough Ophthalmic Blanks-Classification of-Tariff item No. 23-A( 4) or 
Residuary Tariff Item No. 68--Held: Identity of an article is associated with its 
primary function-The functional character of Rough Ophthalmic Blanks is 
.,, ... 
different from glass or glassware as these are used for making optical lenses-
D 
Hence, Rough Ophthalmic Blanks are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 23-
A(4) but under Residuary Tariff Item 68 attracting a lower rate of dutr-
Central Excise Tariff. 
The appellant imported Rough Ophthalmic Blanks and was called 
E 
upon to pay countervailing duty, which it paid. The appellant filed an 
appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal 
~ 
contending that Rough Ophthalmic Blanks fell under Residuary Tariff 
Item No. 68 attracting a lower rate of excise duty and not under Tariff 
Item No. 23-A(4) and claimed refund of countervailing duty. The appeal 
was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In interpreting items in Statutes like Excise Acts or Sales 
Tax Acts resort should be had not to the scientific or technical meaning of 
-
the terms or expressions used but how does the class or section of people 
G 
dealing with or using the product identify the product. However, if any 
term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be 
understood in the sense in which it is so defined. It is also a common 
experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary 
~ 
function inasmuch as a customer buys it to perform a specific function 
H 
from it. [73-A-B] 
70 
REAL OPTICAL CO. v. APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [PHUKAN, !.] 71 
2. A general merchant dealing in glass or tableware does not deal in 
A 
+ 
articles like Rough Ophthalmic Blanks with optical properties, which may 
be used for making spectacles. The functional character of Rough Oph· 
thalmic Blanks is different from glass or glassware, as these commodities 
are used for different purpose viz., making of optical lenses, etc. Rough 
Ophthalmic Blanks are purchased by manufacturer of spectacles for mak· 
B 
ing spectacle lenses and not for the purpose of other glass or glassware 
.. 
induding tableware. [73-D] 
Inda International Industries v. CST, AIR (1981) SC 1079, followed. 
~ 
Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ud. v. CCE, [1986) 3 SCC 480, relied on. 
c 
3. Rough Ophthalmic Blanks would not come under Tariff Item No. 
23·A(4) but will come under Residuary Tariff Item No. 68. 
CIVIL AP!"ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 467 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.86 of the Customs, Excise and 
D 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in C.A. No. 242 of 1981-D. 
Ambrish Kumar for the Appellant. 
.,,.. 
Gowri Shankar Moorthy, T. Raja and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respond-
en ts. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
... 
judgment dated 1-7-1986 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appel-
late Tribunal, New Delhi. 
F 
+ 
The question raised in this appeal is whether Rough Ophthalmic Blanks 
falls under tariff item No.23-A (4) or under Residuary Tariff item No.68 of 
Central Excise Tariff. 
The appellant imported Rough Ophthalmic Blanks and was called upon 
G 
to pay connter-vailing duty, which was paid. The Appellate Collector of 
Customs, Mumbai in another appeal held that Rough Ophthalmic Blanks 
could be charged to duty only under Residuary Tariff item No.68. The 
appellant, therefore, applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs (lncharge 
of Refuod), Madras claiming refund of the above connter-vailing duty, which 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
was· rejected. The appeal and the review filed by the appellant were also 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the Customs, 
1'-
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal 
heard the appeal filed by the appellant along with other appeals and dismissed 
the appeal of the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 1.7.1986. 
The facts are not disputed that Rough Ophthalmic Blanks with optical 
properties are manufactured out of combination of highly purified form of raw 
glass and other materials such as silica, alwnina, 

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