Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ergo Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Ergo Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 04, 2004
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34011

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ergo Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(166)ELT60TriDel

Excerpt

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. countering the arguments shri u. raja ram, learned departmental representative submitted that as per explanatory notes of hsn heading 9004 covers articles for use in front to eyes generally intended wither to correct certain defects of vision or to protect the eyes against dust, smoke gas etc. or dazzle; that the explanatory notes of hsn further mentions that.....

Full Judgment

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. countering the arguments Shri U. Raja Ram, learned Departmental Representative submitted that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN Heading 9004 covers articles for use in front to eyes generally intended wither to correct certain defects of vision or to protect the eyes against dust, smoke gas etc. or dazzle; that the Explanatory Notes of HSN further mentions that protective spectacles and goggles generally consist of plane or curved discs of ordinary glass, of safety glass, of plastics, of mica or of metal; these articles include sunglasses, spectacles used for mountaineering or winter sports, goggles of airmen, motorists, motorcyclists, chemists, welders, foundry workers, moulders, sand-blast machine operators, electricians, etc.; that it is thus apparent from the Explanatory Notes that protective spectacles and goggles include articles such as sunglasses, goggles for motorists/motor cyclists; that these sunglasses covers goggles for motorist/motor-cyclists; that accordingly the driving goggles are classifiable under Heading 9004.10.

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Heading 9004 reads as under : "90.04 Spectacles, goggles and the like, corrective, protective or other.

4.2 Sunglasses which is one variety of goggles has been placed under sub Heading 9004.10 specifically. Further, this sub Heading covers only sunglasses other than those used for correcting vision. All other articles covered by Heading 9004 are classifiable under sub Heading 9004.90. As par the New Oxford dictionary of English, Indian Edition, sunglasses mean "glasses tinted to protect eyes from sunlight or glare". It is thus apparent that the sunglasses have specific function of protecting the eyes from sub light or glare. It cannot be said that driving glass manufactured by the appellants are only glasses tinted to protect the eyes from sunlight or glare. The Appellants have emphasised that the driving goggles are used for both in day time as well as in the night for the purpose of protecting the eyes of motor-cyclists from dust particles, flying mosquitoes, wind etc. The reliance of the Revenue of the HSN Explanatory Notes does not advance their case. The Explanatory Notes rather describe the various types of protective spectacles and goggles. According to the Explanatory Notes protective spectacles and goggles include, "sunglasses, spectacles used for mountaineering or winter sports, goggles for airmen, motorists, motor-cyclists, chemists etc." If the contention of the Revenue is accepted, goggles meant for chemists, welder, foundry workers would also be covered by the term sunglasses. In fact the Explanatory Notes separately mention the sunglasses and goggles for motorists and motor-cyclists. In view of this, we hold that driving goggles are not covered by the term sunglasses. Accordingly, driving goggles are classifiable under sub-Heading 9004.90. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial