Collector Of Central Excise vs Patel Glass Works on 19 March, 1998

0
55
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Patel Glass Works on 19 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998 (104) ELT 473 Tri Del


ORDER

Lajja Ram, Member (J)

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the glass jars manufactured by the respondents, M/s. Patel Glass Works were eligible for the concessional rate of Central Excise duty under Serial No. 1 of the Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 as held by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, or were covered by Serial No. 5 of the table annexed to Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986.

2. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits.

3. On behalf of the appellants /Revenue, Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, is present.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. The respondents, among others, were engaged in the manufacture of glass jars. In the manufacture of such glass jars molten glass was manually brought to the first mould after a jar shape had been given to the molten glass by mouth blowing process. After the first mould, the semi-finished jar was taken to the second mould where the compressed air was blown into the semi-finished jar, The compressed air was coming through the pipe line and the compressed air was injected into the semi-finished jar by opening the lever fixed on the pipe line. When not required, the lever was closed. It was at the stage of the second mould when compressed air had been injected into the semi manufactured jars that the final shape of the jar was obtained. The mouth blown process was limited only for giving a semi-finished shape to the jar at the first mould.

5. Under serial no. 5 of the Table annexed to Notification No, 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended), the following goods were covered :

“Glassware (other than that referred to in S.No. 4 above) which is produced by the mouth blown process and glassware produced by manually operated process by manufacturers having tank furnaces.”

Serial No. 4 referred the following:

“Tableware and articles for decoration, as are produced by the mouth-blown process only.”

It is seen that the glassware which were other than tableware and articles for decoration were covered by serial no. 5. Only those glassware which in the first instance were produced by the mouth blown process were covered by this serial number. Even if it is assumed that the glass jug was not a tableware, it is seen that it was not produced by the mouth blown process. The mouth blown process was only to enable the molten glass to assume a bare shape of the semi-finished jug. In no way the mouth blown process alone was used in the manufacture of the glass jug. In the second furnaces were covered. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had mentioned that “it is neither stated by the Assistant Collector nor by the appellant whether they have tank furnace or not.” Further it is seen that the process adopted by the respondents was not fully manual. The compressed air was injected into the semi-finished jar and this compressed air was going through a pipe line and had to be generated mechanically. The compressed air could not be obtained manually.

6. We, therefore, consider that the goods as described and as manufactured through the process of manufacture as summarised by the adjudicating authority as well as referred to by the appellate authority were not covered by Serial No. 5 of the table under Notification No. 52/86-C.E.

7. The adjudicating authority had held that the goods were covered by Serial No. 1 of the Table under Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Serial No. 1 of the Table, aforesaid, covered the following:

“Glassware produced by semi-automatic process, that is to say, where molten glass is taken to the first mould manually and where either compressed air or mechanically operated press is used.”

In the process of manufacture, the compressed air was used and without the use of compressed air such compressed air the glass jug in the finished form could not be obtained. The molten glass was taken to the first mould manually, but it was nowhere provided that the compressed air should be used only in the first mould. In this case the compressed air was used at the stage of the second mould.

8. In the case of S.G. Glass Works Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur – 1994 (74) E.L.T. 775 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 3 of their judgment had held that it was the use of compressed air which was decisive of exemption irrespective of whether it was used at the first or the second mould. In that case the Tribunal under their Order No. D-444/85-B, dated 6-12-1985 (in Appeal no. 1700/81) had referred to the process of manufacture where in the compressed air was used in the second mould. The assessee had contended that for being a semi-automatic process, the use of compressed air operated press or mechanically operated press must be in the first mould where the molten glass is taken manually. This contention was negatived by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal by the assessee when it was held that glassware manufactured by the assessee was produced by semiautomatic process.

9. As the respondents were using compressed air for operating the press, we consider that the process adopted by the respondents was a semiautomatic process which was covered by Serial No. 1 of the Table under Notification No. 67/88-C.E.

10. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and set aside the same, and restore the Order-in-Original, dated 31-3-1989 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *