As per case facts, the appellant, M/S S.G. Glass Works Private Ltd., claimed partial excise duty exemption under Notification No. 329/77 for glassware produced by a semi-automatic process, asserting that ... its manufacturing involved compressed air, even if used in the second mould. Initially, this explanation was accepted, and a show cause notice proposing to classify their goods under a different serial number was cancelled. However, a fresh notice led to a review where the Assistant Collector held the glassware fell under a higher duty item because compressed air was not used in the first mould. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether glassware like globes, chimneys, and jars manufactured by the appellant manually were eligible for duty under serial No. 1 or 3 of Notification No. 329/77, specifically concerning the interpretation of 'semi-automatic process' and the requirement for compressed air usage at the first or second mould. Finally, the Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that the benefit under the Notification was for glassware produced by a semi-automatic process, defined as taking molten glass manually to the first mould and using either compressed air or a mechanically operated press. The Court clarified that the Notification did not specify that compressed air must be used *only* in the first mould. The use of the word 'where' indicated a situation or relation, not a restrictive place. Therefore, the use of compressed air was decisive for exemption, regardless of whether it was applied in the first or second mould. Consequently, the appellant's glassware was deemed produced by a semi-automatic process, making it eligible for the claimed exemption under serial No. 1 of Notification No. 329/77.