Classification of Tinted Float Glass with Tin Layer: Supreme Court Lists Case with Similar Appeals for Joint Hearing [Read Order]

The Revenue-appellant, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur, challenged the order dated 14.12.2023 of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had dismissed the department’s appeal against the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 03.03.2023.

The Assistant Commissioner had finalized 220 Bills of Entry filed by Asahi India Glass Ltd.,respondent-assessee, for imports of Light Green Float Glass from Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand under Customs Tariff Item 7005 10 10, cancelled the provisional duty bonds, and released the bank guarantees. Both authorities relied on a 20.07.2022 order in the same matter, which classified Light Green Float Glass under CTI 7005 10 10.

Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here

The key issue was whether the imported Light Green Float Glass should be classified under CTI 7005 10 10, as claimed by the importer, or under CTI 7005 21 10, as claimed by the department, which would affect its eligibility for exemption from basic customs duty under the Exemption Notification dated 01.06.2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department’s appeal and upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

The two member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R.Priya (Technical Member) considered the submissions of the department and assessee. The issue concerned the classification of Light Green Float Glass under Chapter 70 of the CustomsTariff.

In 2021, assessee filed three Bills of Entry for clearance of the glass. During assessment, the Port Assessment Group (PAG) sought clarification about pending proceedings at Patparganj Customs. The assessee submitted the speaking order dated 04.09.2021, which classified similar goods under CTSH 7005 21, and informed that an appeal was pending. They requested provisional clearance under section 18 of the Customs Act, which was allowed with a bond and bank guarantee. Subsequent imports were also cleared provisionally.

The Commissioner (Appeals), in the order dated 20.07.2022, set aside the earlier speaking order and held that the glass, having a tin layer, should be classified under CTSH 7005 10 10. The assessee requested finalization of the Bills of Entry under this classification, which the Assistant Commissioner accepted on 14.03.2023, cancelling the provisional bonds.

The department appealed, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order, confirming that CTSH 7005 10 covered non-wired glass with an absorbent layer and that test reports supported the classification. The Committee of Commissioners accepted this order. A similar appeal against a Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 24.06.2022 was also allowed, confirming the same classification. The department did not appeal this order.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order dated 14.12.2023 after considering the earlier 20.07.2022 order in favor of Asahi India Glass, which the department had already accepted. Since the classification of Light Green Float Glass under CTI 7005 10 10 was accepted, the department could not claim it should be under CTI 7005 21 10.

The department relied on a Circular dated 14.11.2024, which stated that a tin layer present by default on clear float glass does not qualify as an absorbent layer, and such glass should be classified under CTI 7005 29 90. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Circular could not overturn the settled legal position. Test reports from CSIR Kolkata confirmed that the tin layer on the glass acted as an absorbent and reflective layer under Note 2(c) of Chapter 70.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the glass was correctly classified under CTI 7005 10 10, and the department’s appeal was dismissed.

The matter was taken before the Supreme Court on 01-09-2025 comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan to decide the classification of tinted float glass with a tin layer under Entry 7005 10 10 or 7005 21 10. The CESTAT had held that the presence of a tin layer qualified as an ‘absorbent’ under Note 2(c) of Chapter 70, placing the glass under Entry 7005 10 10.

The department argued that tin occurs naturally in all float glass due to the manufacturing process, so its presence alone should not determine classification, and that no other absorbent was found, supporting classification under Entry 7005 21 10.

The assessee maintained that Note 2(c) included any microscopically thin metal coating, including tin, and the Tribunal’s view was correct.

Since similar matters were pending, the Court directed that this case be tagged with Civil Appeal Diary No. 28721/2024 and listed with other matters on 06.10.2025.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates