STANDARD BATTERIES LIMITED Vs. APPRAISER APPRAISING DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether fibre glass sleevings used in the manufacture of plastic glass tubes which in turn are used in the manufacture of miner cap lamp batteries fall within Item 53 of the Customs Tariff viz. textile manufactures, not otherwise specified.

(2.) THE petitioner company manufactures miner cap lamp batteries. To insulate positive battery plates they use plastic glass tubes. THEse plastic glass tubes are made out of imported fibre glass or glass wool sleevings. THE fibre glass sleevings are knitted out of a very special kind of fibre glass yarn into tubular sleevings of 0.7 c.m. diameter. THE sleevings are made into plastic glass tubes with the use of an outer rigid P.V.C covering. THE plastic glass tubes are then assembled into tubular positive groups over a spine arrangement. THE fibre glass sleevings are specially designed and manufactured for the plastic glass tubes of miner cap lamp batteries made by the petitioner company. THE plastic glass process is a patent process belonging exclusively to M/s. Swedish Tudor, Sweden. Originally, these fibre glass sleevings were classified under Item 73(7)(b) of the Customs Tariff as parts of batteries. Subsequently, on an objection being raised by the audit department, the respondent classified the goods under item 53 of the Customs Tariff as 'textile manufactures not otherwise specified'.

(3.) A similar question arose for consideration before Mohan J. inEnglish Elec. Co.v.Govt. of India, 1977 TaxLR 2260. In that case imported periglass sleevings or silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings were classified by the Customs department within the category of textiles. The learned Judge after referring to the various dictionary meanings of the word 'textile' and also to certain text books on manufacturing technology of continuous glass fibres observed as follows - "As laid down by the Division Bench inState of Tamil Naduv.East India Rubber Works, the word 'textile' occurring under item 53 must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, the sense in which they are commonly understood in ordinary parlance and not in its primary or technical sense. The respondents are interpreting the word 'textile' only in its technical sense. On the contrary, neither the trade nor industry looks upon the periglass sleevings as a variety of textile manufacture as seen from the literature relating to silicon rubber coated glass sleevings and also Vida Flex Vinyl coated glass sleeving" * Accordingly, the learned Judge held that item 53 of the Customs Tariff did not apply to P.V.C. coated periglass sleevings or silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings. The same principle applies to the fibre glass sleevings which are the subject of classification in these writ petitions. They do not come within the ordinary meaning of the word textile, or the sense in which the word textile is commonly understood in ordinary parlance. If the word is understood in its technical sense, as contended by Mr. U.N.R. Rao., then the fibre glass sleevings would come under item 53 of the Customs Tariff. In this case, it has not been established by the respondent that the trade and industry looks upon the fibre glass sleevings as a variety of textile manufacture. In the circumstances, I hold that item 53 of the Customs Tariff does not apply in the case of fibre glass sleevings.