ERGO AUTO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in the these three appeals arising out of a common order -in -Appeal is whether driving goggles manufactured by M/s. Ergo Auto Ltd. are classifiable under sub Heading 9004.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under sub Heading 9004.10 as sunglasses as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) SHRI N.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that sub Heading 9004.10 applies only to sunglasses other than those used for correcting vision and sub Heading 9004.90 applies to all other spectacles, goggles and the like, corrective, protective or other; that sunglasses as understood in the trade parlance and as known to the user are meant for protection against sun; that the meaning of the sunglasses as per Oxford Advance Learners' Dictionary of Current English is "glasses of dark coloured glass to protect the eyes from bright sun"; that the coverage of sub -Heading 9004.10 is well defined, clear and without ambiguity and covers only sunglasses other than those sunglasses meant for correcting vision. He, further, submitted that the driving goggles are solely used for the purpose of protecting the motor cycle riders against road hazards such as dust particles, flying mosquitoes and wind etc.; that driving goggles are meant for day and night use and that these goggles are not used as fashion sunglasses. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ramchand Choithram Sons vs. CCE [ : 1990 (50) ELT 193 (Tri)] wherein it has been held that sunglasses are type of spectacles in which the lenses are tinted to reduce light transmission and avoid glare.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of both the sides. Heading 9004 reads as under :