Civil Appeal No 3435 of 1984 etc
From the Order dated 2471984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No EDSBA66484 D KK Venugopal Soli J Sorabji Bishambar Lal HK Kochar IL Beri PK Chatterjee Rajesh Agarwal and Arun Kr Sinha for the Appellants
G Das A Subhashini PP Singh CV Subba Rao and Sushma Ratha for the Respondents
130 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J
The question raised in the appeal filed by Atul Glass Industries Pvt
 Ltd CA No 3435 of 1984 under section 35Lb of the is whether glass mirrors fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 or Tariff Item No 68 of the First Schedule to the 
That is also the question raised in the Transferred Cases Nos 349 350 and 355 of 1983 filed by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd with an additional question whether the glass screens fitted in motor vehicles as wind screens rear screens and window screens fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 or Tariff Item No 34A or Tariff Item No 68
The Appellant Atul Glass Industries Pvt Ltd carries on the business of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors
It purchases duty paid glass sheets from the manufacturers of glass and either in their original size or after reducing them to smaller sizes puts the glass sheets through a process of treatment
The glass pieces are buffed with the aid of buffing machines in order to improve the surface of the glass and prepare it for mirror processing
The glass is fed into an automatic silvering conveyor line where it passes through a stage of mechanical cleaning and polishing with the aid of nylon bristle brushes so that the glass surface is rendered free of scratches dust particles and carbohydrates
The glass is then washed mechanically with the aid of cylindrical brushes using distilled water as a washing medium
Thereafter the glass surface is sensitised by chemical compounds such as stannous chloride and rinsed with distilled or demineralised water to remove excess of chemicals
The sensitised glass is passed through a chamber where silver in liquid form with the aid of reducing solutions is applied as a very thin and uniform adherent reflective film on the surface of the glass
The silver coating being of malleable metal is protected by a coating of copper in the form of a thin metal deposit with the aid of an electromagnetic spray system
The excess of copper and acidic solutions are rinsed away with the distilled or demineralised water
Subsequently hot air is employed for the purpose of drying and the humidity is removed completely with the aid of an infra red heating system
After thorough drying the silver and copper coatings are protected with four coats of special mirror backing paint applied with the aid of a roller coating machine in four stages
The paint is baked in the baking conveyor after thorough drying
The other side of the mirror is 131 mechanically cleaned
The mirror thus produced is finally sent for quality control inspection
Cut glass is employed in the case of decorative mirrors
The cut glass is shaped with the aid of cutting lathemachines before subjecting it to the silver process
Edge grinding or bevelling and hole drilling is done if required after the mirror has been manufactured
Before the budget of 1979 Tariff Item No 23 relating to glass and glass ware  prescribed the different rates of duty in respect of 1 sheet glass and plate glass 2 laboratory glass ware 3 glass shells glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern and 4 other glassware including table ware 
During the period following the budget of 1979 which is the period which concerns us Tariff Item No 23A relating to glass and glass ware specified the rates of duty in respect of 1 flat glass which included sheet glass wired glass and rolled glass whether in the form of plate glass figured glass or in any other form 2 laboratorty glass ware 3 glass shells glass globes and chimney for lamps and lantern and 4 other glass and glass ware including table ware 
Tariff Item No 68 is of residuary character and relates to all other goods not elsewhere specified but excluding alcohol opium and certain other goods specified therein
The rate of duty is higher if the product falls under Tariff Item No 23A4 than if it fell under Tariff Item No 68
The appellant submitted a classification list showing glass mirror as covered by duty under Item No 68
Before March 1 1979 glass mirrors were treated as exempt from duty as they were manufactured from duty paid glass
The exemption was cancelled from March 1 1979
Simultaneously Tariff Item No 23A4 underwent an amendment as mentioned earlier by the substitution of words other glass and glass ware  for the words other glass ware 
On January 28 1980 the Excise Authorities issued a notice calling upon the appellant to take out an L 4 Licence on the ground that glass mirrors were classifiable as other glass  within the meaning of Tariff Entry No 23A4 as a product now dutiable from March 1 1979
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and simultaneously preferred an appeal before the Collector Appeals
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the question of liability to duty on its merits observing that the appellant should pursue its appeal before the Collector Appeals
On January 24 1984 the appeal was allowed by the Collector Appeals
He held that Tariff Item No 68 applied to glass mirrors
The Revenue appealed to the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal
132 The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Collector Appeals holding that Tariff Item No 23A4 was attracted
The Appellate Tribunal held that glass mirrors should be classified as glass ware 
And now this appeal
It appears from the record before us that the true classification of glass mirrors has been the subject of fluctuating opinion among the higher echelons of the Revenue
Opinion has varied from time to time
Tariff Advice No 60 of 1979 dated December 18 1979 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs took the stand that glass mirrors could be described as glass ware and therefore merited classification under Tariff Item No 23A4
Subsequently on doubts being raised regarding such classification the Central Board of Excise and Customs considered the matter further and by Tariff Advice No 61 of 1980 dated September 27 1980 opined that glass mirrors would fall under Tariff Item No 68 in as much as while glass sheets were used as raw material the subsequent processing applied thereto gave rise to a different commercial product altogether the utility of the glass being reduced to a mere medium
This was of course subject to the condition that the glass sheets out of which the glass mirrors were prepared had paid appropriate duty under Tariff Item No 23A before being employed in the manufacture of mirrors
The controversy was re opened later and the Central Board of Excise and Customs reverted to its original understanding of the classification for the product
By Tariff Item No 41 of 1981 dated May 7 1981 it pointed out that glass mirrors had been classified under the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature as glass and glass ware and taking the view that after undergoing silvering a glass mirror still remained glass it advised that glass mirrors should be treated as liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No 23A4 as other glass and glass ware 
It has been noticed that the Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the appellant to take out an L 4 Licence on the footing that glass mirrors fell under Tariff Item No 23A4 that on appeal the Collector Appeals reached the conclusion that it was not open to such classification but fell under the residuary Tariff Item No 68 and that the Appellate Tribunal thereafter reversed the Collector Appeals and upheld the Superintendent of Central Excise
It is in this uncertain climate of opinion that the question calls for decision by this Court
A broad description of the process through which a glass sheet passes has been detailed earlier
It indicates clearly to our mind that the original glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation when it 133 emerges as a glass mirror
What was a piece of glass simpliciter has now become a commercial product with a reflecting surface
Into the process of transformation have gone successive stages of processing with the aid of chemicals such as stannous chloride silver nitrate and copper coating besides an entire range of physical proscesses involving polishing washing coating drying varnishing evaporation and cooling
The evolved product is completely different from the original glass sheet
What was once a glass piece in its basic character has no longer remained so
It has been reduced to a mere medium
That is clear if regard is had to the fundamental function and qualities of a glass mirror
The power to reflect an image is a power derived not from the glass piece but principally from the silvering and other processes applied to the glass medium
If any part of the coating is scratched and removed that particular area of the glass mirror will cease to be glass mirror
That simple test demonstrates the major importance attributable to the chemical deposit and coating which constitute a material component of a glass mirror
It is not mandatory that a mirror employed for the purpose of reflecting an image should have a glass base
Copper mirrors have been known from the dawn of history
In the modern age acrylic sheets are sometimes used instead of glass for manufacturing mirrors
It is apparent therefore that a glass mirror cannot be regarded as a glass
For the same reason it cannot be classified as glass ware  for glass ware  means merchandise made of glass and understood in its primary sense as a glass article
A glass bowl a glass vase a glass tumbler a glass table top and so on are all articles in which the primary component is glass
They are nothing more and nothing less
Any treatment of an ornamental nature applied to such articles does not derogate from their fundamental character as glass articles
It is quite the contrary in the case of a glass mirror
The case is more akin to that of carbon paper
A sheet of paper with a carbon coating thereon is employed for the purpose of producing copies of the original
The paper is a mere base while the function is performed by the carbon coating
This Court held in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ms Kores India Ltd   that carbon paper could not be described as paper
It referred to the functional difference between the two and pointed out that while paper would be understood as meaning a substance which was used for writing or printing or drawing on or for packing or decorating or covering the walls carbon paper which is manufactured by coating the tissue paper with a thermosetting ink based mainly on wax non drying oils pigments and dyes could not be so described
134 The test commonly applied to such cases is How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not contain any definition
Porritts and Spencer Asia Ltd vs State of Haryana 1978 42 STC 433
It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified
In Commissioner of Sales Tax UP vs Macneill  Barry Ltd Kanpur  This Court expressed the view that ammonia paper and ferro paper used for obtaining prints and sketches of site plans could not be described as paper as that word was used in common parlance
On the same basis the Orissa High Court held in State of Orissa vs Gestetner Dluplicators P Ltd 1974 33 STC 333 that stencil paper could not be classified as paper for the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act
It is a matter of common experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function
It is only logical that it should be so
When a consumer buys an article he buys it because it performs a specific function for him
There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life
It is the functional character of the article which identified it in his mind
In the case of a glass mirror the consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the article more than anything else
It is a mirror an article which reflects images
It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the word glass is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a medium for manufacturing the mirror
The basic or fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror
It was observed by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd vs State of Rajasthan  Ors
 Which was a case under the Sales Tax law In determining the meaning or connotation of words and expressions describing an article or commodity the turnover of which is taxed in a sales tax enactment if there is one principle fairly well settled it is that the words or expression must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer
It is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it that consitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention when the statute was enacted
 That was also the view expressed in Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd vs Union of India and Others
1985 22 ELT 3
Where the goods are not marketable that principle of construction is not attract 135 ed
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltdv
Union of India and Others
1985 3 SCC 284
The question whether thermometers lactometers syringes eye wash glasses and measuring glasses could be described as glass ware  for the purpose of the Orissa Sales Tax Act 1947 was answered by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa vs Janta Medical Stores 1976 37 STC 33
In the negative
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Indo International Industries vs Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh  Where hypodermic clinical syringes were regarded as falling more accurately under the entry relating to hospital equipment and apparatus rather than under the entry which related to glass wares in the UP Sales Tax Act
Reliance was placed by the Revenue on Commissioner of Sales Tax UP vs Banaras Bead Manufacturing Co 197025 STC 100
Where the Allahabad High Court held that glass beads could be described as glass ware for the purpose of a Notification issued under the UP Sales Tax Act
The decision of the High Court rested on the manner in which the contextual setting was altered in successive and different Notifications promulgated under the UP Sales Tax Act indicating the content of the expression as developed through successive Notifications
Our attention has been drawn on behalf of the Revenue to the circumstance that glass mirrors have been classified as glass and glass ware  in Chapter 70 of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
It seems to us that this circumstance can hardly advance the case of the Revenue because the First Schedule to the Central Execises and Salt Act does not appear to have been modelled on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
There is nothing to show that the Tariff Items were classified in the Schedule on the basis of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
It was when the was enacted that the First Schedule to that Act was framed in accordance with the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature evidently because the progress made in industrial growth and economic development and the substantial changes in the composition and pattern of India s external trade called for the need to modernise and rationalise the nomenclature of India s Tariff in line with contemporary conditions
The glass mirrors were still not specifically mentioned under the 
They are now being brought in as such by the Customs Tariff Bill 1985
136 It is pointed out that glass mirrors have been classified by the Indian Standards Institution as glass and glass ware in the glossary of terms prepared by it in respect of that classification
That to our mind furnishes a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has been treated for the purpose of the specifications laid down by the Indian Standards Institution
It was a test employed by this Court in Union of India vs Delhi Cloth  General Mills 1963 Supp
1 SCR 586 but was regarded as supportive material only of the expert opinion furnished by way of evidence in that case
The considerations to which we have adverted should in our opinion have greatly weighed in deciding the question raised in this appeal
So also in Union Carbide Co Ltd vs Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others  the description set forth in the publications of the Indian Standards Institution was regarded as a piece of evidence only
There were other more tangible considerations which weighed with the Court in reaching its conclusions
We are firmly of the view that glass mirrors cannot be classified as other glass and glass ware  set forth in Tariff Item No 23A4 and must therefore fall under the residuary Tariff Item No 69
An additional point arises in Ms Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd Transfer Cases Nos 349 350 and 355 of 1983
The manufacturers of motor vehicles place orders with the appellant for the manufacture of screens for fitting in motor vehicles
They are commonly known as wind screens rear screens and door screens
The screens are manufactured according to the specific shape and measurements indicated in the orders for different vehicles require screens of different shapes and measurements
The screen is manufactured from sheet glass
It is first given shape and size according to the specifications contained in the order and thereafter subjected to the process of toughening
It is a fabricated article
The Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty on the basis that the screens fell under Tariff Item No 23A4 relating to glass and glass ware 
The petitioner filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the view taken by the Excise authorities
The question in these cases is whether the screens manufactured by the petitioners can be classified under Tariff Item No 23A4 or Tariff Item No 34A or Tariff Item No 68
Prior to February 28 1979 Tariff Item No 34A which was 137 headed Item No 34A Motor Vehicle Parts related to Parts and accessories not elsewhere specified of Motor vehicles and Tractors including Trailers and the rate of duty prescribed was 20 ad valorem
Under Rule 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules the Central Government issued Notification No MF DRI 9971 dated May 29 1971 as amended by a subsequent Notification exempting parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item No 34A other than those specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon
The Schedule annexed to the Notification did not mention the screens manufactured for motor vehicles
The parts and accessories specifically mentioned in the Notification to the Schedule were covered by a Notification No 10171 CE dated May 29 1971 as amended subsequently by which the Central Government exempted under Rule 8 parts and accessories of motor vehicles provided it was establishd to the satisfaction of the Collector of Central Excise that the parts were intended to be used as original equipment parts by the manufacturers of motor vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item No 34A The Finance Bill of 1979 introduced changes in Tariff Item No 34A Tariff Item No 34A now spoke of parts and accessories of motor vehciles and tractors including trailers the folowing namely  and here followed 15 parts and accessories
The screens manufactured by the petitioner did not figure in that list
Until the enactment of the Finance Bill of 1979 the commodities manufactured by the petitioner would have fallen within the ambit of Tariff Item No 34A
But after the introduction of the Finance Bill 1979 the Central Government issued Notification No 76 of 1979 CE dated March 1 1979 under Rule 9 whereby parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors which had not been specified in Tariff Item No 34A but which fell under that Tariff Item were exempted from so much duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of 8 ad valorem
Two more Notifications were issued No 7479 CE dated March 1 1979 and No 7579 CE dated March 1 1979
By these Notifications parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors falling under Tariff Item No 34A were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon provided the said parts or accessories were intended to be used in the manufacture of assembled components of motor vehicles and tractors and such assembled components were used as original equipment parts by the manufacturers of those vehicles and such parts and accessories which were intended to be used as original equipment parts by such manufacturers
On the enforcement of the Finance Act 1979 the ambit of Tariff Item No 34A became restricted to the 15 specified commodities
The 138 commodities manufactured by the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of Tariff Item No 34A
It is case of the petitioner that the commodities manufactured by it fall within the ambit of the residuary Item No 68 of the First Schedule to the 
Prior to the enforcement of the Finance Act 1979 the Central Government had under Rule 8 issued Notification No 166 CE dated April 19 1979 whereby all excisable goods on which the duty of excise was payable and in the manufacture of which parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling under Item No 34A had been used were exempted from so much of the duty of the excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise paid by the said parts and accessories
Another Notification No 16779 dated April 19 1979 was issued under Rule 3 whereby parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling under Item No 34A and intended for use in further manufacture of excisable goods were exempted from the whole of duty leviable thereon provided that the intended use was in a factory of a manufacturer different from the factory in which the said parts and accessories had been manufactured
The Notifications did not apply to the 15 specified items
Subsequently the two Notifications were amended by Notification No 18779 CE dated May 10 1979 by deleting the reference to Tariff Item No 34A and substituting for it Tariff Item No 68
According to the petitioner the result of these successive Notifications is that the parts and accessories of motor vehicles fall under Tariff Item No 34A prior to the enforcement of Finance Act 1979 and after the enforcement of that Act they fall under Tariff Item No 68 provided that the parts and accessories of motor vehicles do not find mention in Tariff Item No 34A as amended by the Finance Act 1979
Upon the tests and having regard to the foregoing considerations which have appealed to us when considering the proper classification of glass mirrors we have no hesitation in holding that the screens cannot be described as glass or glass wares under Tariff Item No 23A4
No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as glass or glass ware
They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts
Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 relating to glass and glass ware  also inasmuch as Tariff Item No 34A is a special entry and Tariff Item No 23A4 is a general entry the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No 34A which prevails and is attracted
It is clear however that after the amendment of Tariff Item No 139 34A by the Finance Act 1979 the scope of that Tariff Item is restricted to the 15 commodities specified therein
That being so the screens manufactured by the petitioner merit classification in the residuary Tariff Item No 68
In the result Civil Appeal No 3435 of 1984 is allowed the order dated July 24 1984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the Order dated January 24 1984 of the Collector Appeals is restored
In the Transfer Cases we allow the writ petitions and direct that the glass mirrors and screens manufactured by the petitioner be treated to excise duty in the light of the observations made by us
The parties shall bear their own costs
APJ Appeal and Petitions allowed


Summary:
The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and selling glass mirrors
Before March 1 1979 glass mirrors were treated as exempt from duty as they were manufactured from duty paid glass
This exemption was cancelled from March 1 1979 and in Tariff Item 23A4 the words other glass and glass ware  were substituted for the words other glass ware 
On January 281980 the Excise Authorities issued a notice calling upon the appellant to take out an L 4 Licence on the ground that glass mirrors were classifiable as other glass  within the meaning of Tariff Entry No 23A4 of the First Schedule to the  as a product dutiable from March 1 1979
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and simultaneously preferred an appeal before the Collector Appeals
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the appellant should pursue its appeal before the Collector Appeals
The appeal was allowed by the Collector Appeals holding that Tariff Item No 68 applied to glass mirrors
On appeal by the Revenue the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Collector Appealsand held that Tariff Item No 23A4 was attracted and that the glass mirrors should be classified as glass ware 
In the transferred cases the manufacturers of motor vehicles place orders with the petitioner for the manufacture of screens for fitting in motor vehicles commonly known as wind screens rear 127 screens door screens and these were to be manufactured according to the specific shapes and measurements indicated in the orders for the different vehicles
The Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty on the basis that these screens fell under Tariff Item No 23A4 relating to glass and glass ware 
The petitioner filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the view taken by the Excise Authorities
On the questions Whether glass mirrors fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 or Tariff Item No 68 and whether glass screens fitted in motor vehicles as wind screen rear screens and window screens fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 or Tariff Item No 34A or Tariff Item No 68 of the First Schedule to the  allowing the Appeal and the Writ Petitions in the transferred cases the Court  HELD 1 Glass mirrors cannot be classified as other glass and glass ware  set forth in Tariff Item No 23A4 and must therefore fall under the residuary Tariff Item No 68
132F G 2 The original glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation when it emerges as a glass mirror
What was a piece of glass simpliciter has now become a commercial product with a reflecting surface
Into the process of transformation have gone successive stages of processing
The evolved product is completely different from the original glass sheet
What was once a glass piece in its basic character has no longer remained so
It has been reduced to a mere medium
That is clear if regard is had to the fundamental function and qualities of a glass mirror
The power to reflect an image is a power derived not from the glass piece but principally from the silvering and other processes applied to the glass medium
If any part of the coating is scratched and removed that particular area of the glass mirror will cease to be glass mirror
That simple test demonstrates the major importance attributable to the chemical deposit and coating which constitute a material component of a glass mirror
It is not mandatory that a mirror employed for the purpose of reflecting an image should have a glass base
Copper mirrors have been known from the dawn of history
Now acrylic sheets are sometimes used instead of glass for manufacturing mirrors
Therefore a glass mirror cannot be regarded as a glass
For the same reason it cannot be classified as a glass ware  for glass ware  128 means merchandise made of glass and understood in its primary sense as a glass article
A glass bowl a glass vase a glass tumbler a glass table top and so on are all articles in which the primary component is glass
They are nothing more and nothing less
Any treatment of an ornamental nature applied to such articles does not derogate from their fundamental character as glass articles
It is quite the contrary in the case of a glass mirror
132H 133A F 3 It is a matter of common experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function
It is only logical that it should be so
When a consumer buys it it is because it performs a specific function for him
There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life
It is the functional character of the article which identifies it in his mind
In the case of a glass mirror the consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the article more than anything else
It is a mirror an article which reflects images
It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the word glass is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a medium for manufacturing the mirror
The basic or fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror
134C E State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ms Kores India Ltd   Porritts and Spencers Asia Ltd vs State of Haryana 1978 42 STC 433 Commissioner of Sales Tax UP vs Macneill  Barry Ltd Kanpur   Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd vs State of Rajasthan  Ors
1980 3 SCR1109 Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd vs Union of India and Others 1985 22 ELT3 Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd vs Union of India and Others
 and Indo International Industries vs Commissioner of Sales Tax
Uttar Pradesh  relied upon
State of Orissa vs Gestetner Duplicators P Ltd 1974 33 STC 333 and State of Orissa vs Janta Medical Stores 1976 37 STC 33 approved
Commissioner of Sales Tax UP vs Banaras Bead Manufacturing Co 1970 25 STC 100 distinguished
4 Classification of glass mirrors as glass and glass ware  in Chapter 70 of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature does not advance the case of the Revenue because the First Schedule to the Central Excises 129 and Salt Act was not modelled on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
There is nothing to show that the Tariff Items were classified in the Schedule on the basis of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
It was when the was enacted that the First Schedule to that Act was framed in accordance with the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature
The glass mirrors were still not specifically mentioned under the 
They are now being brought in as such by the Customs Tariff Bill 1985
135E H 5 Classification of glass mirrors by the Indian Standards Institution as glass and glass ware in its glossary of terms furnishes a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has been treated for the purpose of the specifications laid down by the Indian Standard Institution
136A B 6 The screens used in motor vehicles cannot be described as glass or glass wares under Tariff Item No 23A4
No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as glass or glass ware
They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts
Even if it is assumed that they could fall under Tariff Item No 23A4 relating to glass and glass ware also in as much as Tariff Item No 34A is a special entry and Tariff Item No 23A4 is a general entry the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No 34A which prevails and is attracted
138F H 7 After the amendment of Tariff Item No 34A by the Finance Act 1979 the scope of that Tariff Item is restricted to the 15 commodities specified therein
That being so the screens manufactured by the petitioner merit classification in the residuary Tariff Item No 68
138H 139A B