1996(12)LCX0081

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

ESBEE PLAYING CARD CO.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Final Order No. 763/96-D, dated 11-12-1996 in Appeal No. E/2889/88-D

Cases Quoted

Sayee Industries v. Collector — 1983(08)LCX0062 Eq 1983 (014) ELT 2450 (Tribunal)                                        [Para 3]

Collector v. Woodcraft Products Ltd. — 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.)                                       [Para 5]

Advocated By : Shri V. Laxmikumaran, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants manufactured “Playing cards” classifiable under Heading 9504.00. In their two classification lists respectively dated 1-3-1986 and 1-4-1986, they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 73/86, dated 10-2-1986 which prescribed nil rate of duty on “sports goods” falling under Heading 95. They also filed a refund claim of the duty earlier paid by them when they had not availed of this notification. The Assistant Collector rejected the benefit of the subject notification in classification and also rejected the refund claim. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this order in toto, the present appeal is before us.

2. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, Advocate argued the case for the appellants. Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR represented the Revenue.

3. Shri Laxmikumaran referred to the HSN which shows Playing cards as classifiable under 9504.40 as articles of table or parlour games. He stated that Bridge tournaments were sponsored by the Sports Authority of India and the Government had financed holding of such competitions. Trophies were also awarded to the winners of Bridge tournaments out of Government funds. In this connection, he referred to a number of letters issued by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs (sic). Referring to the definitions of “Games” and “Sports” in several dictionaries, Shri Laxmikumaran claimed that these terms were inter-changeable and did not limit themselves to sports or games involving strenuous physical activity but also covered parlour games and games requiring exercise of intellect. He referred to the affidavit filed by the proprietor of Pioneer Sports, Bombay who are dealers in sports goods, as also by the Manager, Bombay Sports in which the averment was made that they were selling playing cards used in the sport of Bridge. He stated that the Ministry in their Circular F. No. B-35/91/75-TRU, dated 21-8-1976 had quoted the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare as to the meaning of the term “sports goods”. He claimed that this circular had been examined by the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of Sayee Industries v. Collector reported in 1983(08)LCX0062 Eq 1983 (014) ELT 2450 CEGAT in holding that rubber playing balls could not be excluded from the description `sports goods’. Shri G.D. Sharma, citing from the Collector’s order maintained that the term `sports goods’ should cover only those articles which involved physical activity and would not cover articles of amusement such as playing cards.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us by both sides.

5. The Assistant Collector had accepted the classification of `playing cards’ under the Heading 95.04 thereby acknowledging that playing cards were `games and sports requisites`. The issue here is whether the description occurring in the notification namely `sports goods’ would cover playing cards or not. The chapter heading does not make any distinction between `sports’ and `games’. Chapter notes also do not provide any insight into such distinction. The dictionary definition produced by the ld. Advocate would indicate that these terms are used inter-changeably. Therefore going by the plain description it would appear that all the goods falling under Heading 95.04 would qualify under this description. The Collector has relied upon trade parlance in observing that `playing cards’ are not `sports goods’. The Assistant Collector has not made such observation. It is not known as to what source has the Collector relied upon. The appellants have placed on record two affidavits indicating that such goods are sold in sports goods shops. As regards the Collector’s observation that making classification regard should be had to the popular meaning, we observe that where the guidance can be had from the wording of the tariff itself, there is no need to go to the trade parlance. As we have observed above playing cards are specifically listed in the HSN under this tariff heading. Where the tariffs are aligned in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Woodcraft reported in - 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.), the value of HSN as directing authority has to be acknowledged. In the cited circular of the Ministry also the concerned Administrative Ministry has opined that the term `sports goods’ has a very wide scope, rendering it difficult to define it comprehensively.

6. From the analysis above, we are satisfied that the term `sports goods’ used in the notification is of wide purport and does cover `playing cards’. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the lower orders and direct consequential relief subject to the applicable provisions of law.

_______

Equivalent 1997 (90) ELT 357 (Tribunal)