2014(06)LCX0178

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)

VMB IMPEX

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CUS. & SERVICE TAX

Final Order Nos. 21035-21037/2014, dated 27-6-2014 in Appeal Nos. C/26640-26641/2013-DB and C/3242/2012-DB

Cases Quoted -

Art Brads Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2012(11)LCX0117 Eq 2013 (292) ELT 0472 (Tribunal) - Followed [Para 3]
Rajan Kumar & Bros.(Impex) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1992(07)LCX0001 Eq 1992 (062) ELT 0142 (Tribunal)
- Referred [Para 1]
Starlite Corporation v. Union of India - 1985(12)LCX0043 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0538 (Bom.) - Referred [Paras 1, 3]

Advocated By -

Shri G. Vidyadhar Reddy, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Teli, AR,for the Respondent.

[Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. -

Appellants filed Bills of Entry for clearance of glass beads (cone shape) imported from Hong Kong. The appellants had claimed classification of the goods under chapter sub-heading No. 7018 10 20 of Customs Tariff. However, the authorities below have classified the same under chapter sub-heading No. 7018 10 90 which attracts higher rate of duty. This was done on the ground that the sample was drawn and sent for testing to Indian Institute of Gemology, New Delhi and the Institute opinioned that the goods can be described as 'Glass Chatons'. It was, however, clarified that the goods in question to be called as bead, the essential component is that it must have a hole or the shape should be such that it can be strung as in a jewelry string, necklace or a rosary. Even though the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Starlite Corporation v. Union of India [1985(12)LCX0043 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0538 (Bom.)] and following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Rajan Kumar & Bros (Impex) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector [1992(07)LCX0001 Eq 1992 (062) ELT 0142 (Tribunal)] were cited in support of the submission that there is no need for piercing of chatons to classify as 'glass beads', the Commissioner has relied upon the opinion given by Indian Institute of Gem-ology and passed the order.


2. Heard both sides.

3. We find that the very same issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Art Beads Pvt. Ltd. [2012(11)LCX0117 Eq 2013 (292) ELT 0472 (Tri.-Mumbai)J and the Tribunal relying upon the decision in the case of Starlite Corporation (supra) came to the conclusion that glass chatons without holes can be classified as glass beads only. This decision was rendered, after taking into account the ISI specifications for glass beads, opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist and trade affidavits had been considered. In view of the decisions cited before us which are squarely applicable to the classification of the item imported by the appellants, we find that the classification claimed by the appellant is correct and accordingly, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open Court)

Equivalent 2015 (321) ELT 0522 (Tri. - Bang.)