ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against clsssification of a product described as “glaze frit” under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent herein filed a Classification List about their product described as glaze frit and claimed its classification under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. This product was being captively consumed by the respondent herein. The Department alleged that the product was not classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 but was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10. The Department claimed that it was Glass Frit though it was used for ceramic tiles to be glazed. For this they relied on the tariff entry under Chapter Heading 32.07 whereunder against Chapter sub-heading 3207.10, the description of the goods reads
“Glass Frit and other glass, in the form of powder, granules or flakes”
They also relied on HSN Notes. The case came up before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot who inter alia held that in view of the approved classification list and price list particularly when the party itself had declared on the second classification list Glaze Frit under sub-heading 3207.90. The Board in its review order dated 21-3-1991 among other things pressed that in view of the above mentioned test results, the product is correctly classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 3207.10 instead of sub-heading 3207.90.
3. Arguing the appeal Shri Ravinder Babu, Ld. DR submits that the decision of the lower authorities ignores the fact that the Central Revenue Control Labortary while sending the test report unambigously stated that the product was glass frit. He submits that glass frit is specifically mentioned in the Tariff against Chapter sub-heading 3207.10. He submits that there is specific entry for the product, there is no question of going to the residuary sub-heading. Ld. DR submits that Chapter sub-heading 3207.10 is specific in so far as glass frit is concerned whereas 3207.90 is residual.
4. Ld. DR submits that the HSN Notes also support this view as glass frits are specifically mentioned in the HSN Explanatory Notes also. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
5. None appeared for the respondent. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the Ld. DR and on perusal of the evidence on record and also the Cross Objection filed by the respondent herein, we note that the case of the Department is built upon the test report of the Central Revenues Control Labortary. The dispute is whether the product is glass frit or glaze frit. According to the Department it is glass frit and is, therefore, classifiable against Chapter sub-heading 3207.10 whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is not glass frit but glazed frit and since glazed frit is not specifically covered under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10 it will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. In the Cross objections, the respondents have submitted that in the Indian Standard Glossary of Terms relating to Vitreous Enamelware and Cermics Metal System-IS:2713:1979, the term Frit is defined as the product of melted batch of enamel, often quenched in water or between rolls to produce grains or small flakes. It has been further contended that in Indian Standard Glossary of Terms relating to Ceramicware IS:2781:1975 the term ‘Frit’, Fritted Glass’ and Glass’ are defined as under :
“Frit: A Glass which contains fluxing meterial and is employed as a constituent in glass, body or other Ceramic compositions.”
It has been submitted by them that Fritted Glaze is defined as a glaze in which a part or all of the fluxing consitituents are prefused whereas Glaze has been defined as a Ceramic coating material to glossy state in formed ceramic article or the material or mixture from which the coating is made. It has been contended further that the terms relating to Glass Industry Frit is defined as Calcised or partly fused materials which is constituent of glassy state. The respondents have submitted that a close scrutiny of the glossary of the terms shows that nowhere the term Glass Frit is defined. It has been submitted that the disputed product is Fritted Glaze and not Frit Glass and therefore, the correct classification of the product will be under sub-heading 3207.90 instead of Chapter sub-heading 3207.10. While examining the contention, the Ld. Commissioner relied on Trade Notices issued by Rajkot Collectorate about the classification of the product and came to the conclusion that the product was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90.
6. We have heard Ld. JDR. We have also perused the Cross Objections filed by the respondents. We have also gone through the evidence of record, the review order of the CBEC and the Order-in-Original passed by the ld. Commissioner. We note that according to the glossary of the terms of Indian Standard, there is no term as Frit Glass. According to the process of manufacturer, the product appears to be Ceramic Glazed Frit. We note further that there is a Trade Notice of Rajkot Collectorate itself i.e. Trade Notice No. 70/89 dated 24-5-1989 whereunder Frit Ceramic Glaze has been ordered to be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. Nothing has been brought on record that there is a term of Frit Glass in the Glossary of Terms relating to Ceramic Glazed Industry. On careful consideration of the various submissions as well as the glossary of terms of Indian Standard, the Trade Notices etc., we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Commissioner classifying the product under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. Cross Objections are also disposed of in the above terms.