Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Asahi India Glass Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Asahi India Glass Ltd. is addressing a technical dispute concerning the Customs classification of tinted float glass. The central issue is whether tinted float glass exhibiting a tin layer should be classified under Customs Tariff Entry 7005 10 10 (referring to glass that is “non-reflective or absorbent”) or Entry 7005 21 10 (referring to other colored float glass).
The CESTAT held that the glass falls under Entry 7005 10 10, relying on Note 2(c) of Chapter 70, which defines “absorbent” as including glass with a microscopically thin coating of metal. The revenue (Customs) contends that the presence of a tin layer is inherent to the float glass manufacturing process and shouldn’t be the sole determining factor for classification as “absorbent,” especially since no other absorbent material was found. The assessee argues that the tin layer is a metallic substance and its presence satisfies the technical definition of “absorbent” under the Chapter Note. Recognizing that several other similar appeals involving the same classification issue are pending, the Supreme Court directed this matter to be tagged and listed for a joint hearing with the main connected appeal (Civil Appeal Diary No. 28721/2024) on October 6, 2025, to ensure a unified judicial resolution of the classification dispute.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard.
2. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether a tinted float glass with presence of Tin layer would be classified under Entry 7005 10 10 or 7005 21 10. The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) by relying on the definition of expression ‘absorbent’ as found in note 2(c) of Chapter 70 has held that presence of Tin layer would make it one having an ‘absorbent’ and, therefore, it would fall in Entry 7005 10 10.
3. On behalf of the Revenue, it is contended that Tin layer is always present in a float glass because of the nature of the manufacturing process by which it is made. In such circumstances, mere presence of Tin layer would not be the determining factor that the float glass concerned falls in Entry 7005 10 10. It is submitted that except the Tin layer, no other absorbent has been found in the test report therefore, the float glass concerned would be classified as one falling in Entry 7005 21 10.
4. Per contra, on behalf of the assessee, the argument is that the expression “absorbent” as defined in note 2(c) of Chapter 70 is clear and if microscopically thin coating of metal is found it would be classified as one having an ‘absorbent’. Moreover, the expression “absorbent” as defined in note 2(c) does not exclude presence of Tin, therefore, once metal is found present, and Tin is a metallic substance, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that there are other similar matters pending before this Court wherein notices have been issued. The details of these matters are given herein below:
1. Civil Appeal Diary No.28721/2024;
2. Civil Appeal Diary No.43050/2024;
3. Civil Appeal Diary No. 12209/2025;
4. Civil Appeal Diary No.12197/2025;
5. Civil Appeal Diary No.15175/2025;
6. Civil Appeal Diary No.15179/2025;
7. Civil Appeal Nos.9565-9569/2025;
8. Civil Appeal Diary No.17851/2025
6. Having regard to there being other matters pending before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that this matter shall be tagged with the main matter as mentioned above i.e. Civil Appeal Diary No.28721/2024.
7. List this matter along with other matters on 06.10.2025.
Author Bio
