REAL OPTICAL CO. versus APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANR.
Rough Ophthalmic Blanks are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 23-A(4) but under Residuary Tariff Item No. 68 because their primary function and commercial character are distinct from glass or glassware; they are used by manufacturers of spectacles for making optical lenses.
- Parties
- Appellant: Real Optical Co.; Respondent: Appellate Collector of Customs; Respondent: P. Parmeshwaran; Respondent: T. Raja
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 23 February 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Customs, Excise and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal Judgment Dated 1.7.1986
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Classification of Goods Under Central Excise Tariff, Interpretation of Tariff Items
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Real Optical Co.
Appellant
Appellate Collector of Customs
Respondent
P. Parmeshwaran
Respondent
T. Raja
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Customs, Excise and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal Judgment Dated 1.7.1986
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Rough Ophthalmic Blanks fall under tariff item No.23-A(4) or under Residuary Tariff item No.68 of Central Excise Tariff
Ratio Decidendi
Rough Ophthalmic Blanks are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 23-A(4) but under Residuary Tariff Item No. 68 because their primary function and commercial character are distinct from glass or glassware; they are used by manufacturers of spectacles for making optical lenses.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Impugned judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 1.7.1986 is set aside
- Parties to bear their own costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment