1992(07)LCX0001
BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
S/Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T) and S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
RAJAN KUMAR & BROS. (IMPEX) PVT. LTD.
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Order No. C/275/92-D, dated 7-7-1992 in C/Appeal No. 1579/88-D
Cases Quoted
STARLITE CORPN.v. U.O.I.- 1985(12)LCX0043 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0538 (BOM.) .[PARAS 3, 4]
RAJAN KUMAR & BROS. v. COLLECTOR - TRIBUNAL ORDER NO. 303/91-D
DATED 2-7-1991 . [PARAS 3, 4]
AGRA LEATHERITES LTD. v. COLLECTOR - TRIBUNAL ORDER NO. 382/91-D
DATED 11-9-1991 . [PARAS 3, 4]
Advocated By: None, for the Appellants.
Shri J.N. Nair, DR, for the Respondents.
[Order per: S.L. Peerar., Member (J)]. - The appellants imported a consignment of Glass Sew-on-Stones (Article No. 413-61-302) pierced with two holes (for sewing on textile, leather etc.). They claimed assessment of glass chatons with two holes as ‘Glass beads’ under Heading 7018.10 of the Customs Tariff. They claimed that as glass beads, they were exempted from total amount of auxiliary duty under Notification No. 187/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 and Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. They claimed that no additional duty was chargeable on the goods in question as there being no Excise duty on glass beads under Item 70.15/10 of C.E.T. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs did not accept their plea and assessed the goods under Customs Tariff Heading No. 7018.10 as ‘Imitation precious or semi-precious stones’ and denied the benefit of Auxiliary duty and additional duty available to glass beads. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected it.
2. In this case, the appellants have contended that they had imported the items against licence dated 2-9-1985 valid for import of glass beads/glass chatons. The Assistant Collector had rejected the import licence produced as not valid on the ground that it covered glass beads and glass chatons and not Imitation precious or semi-precious stones and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It is contended that the glass sew-on-stones No. 413-61-302 are glass chatons pierced with two holes for threading and the same is recognised in the trade and commerce as ‘glass beads’. They have relied on Tariff advice No. 15/81 dated 6-2-1981 issued by Bombay Collectorate. Alternatively, they have also contended that if the goods are not considered as glass beads, even then the goods are not chargeable to additional duty in view of Notification No. 185/85-Cus., dated 1-6-1985 as amended by Notification No. 103/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 and also Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 16-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 185/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. They have contended that the Asstt. Collector has wrongly relied on the dictionary meaning by referring to Readers’ Digest Dictionary and that he has failed to constitute the meaning of ‘beads’ properly. They have contended that Sew-on-stones/ Chatons’ are essentially pierced with two holes on the bottom for threading or sewing on to the textile fabric or leather etc. and it is this characteristics which makes their use as glass beads and/or they are recognised in the trade parlance as glass beads. They have also referred to certain meanings given to the words ‘Chaton’ at page 350 of Random House Dictionary of English language. It reads as “an imitation gem of paste that has its pavilion backed with metal foil or silver to reflect light (2) a benzel in a ring.” ‘Therefore, they state that the words ‘Glass chatons’ have been used since last two decades by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce in the Import Policy books as well as in the Import licence. They contend that the words glass chatons are frequently used by people who buy and sell glass beads, imitation (glass) semi-precious and imitation precious stones and people dealing with imitation jewellery.
3. When the case was taken up for hearing, the appellants by their have sought their case to be decided on merits and have relied on the citation rendered in the case of Starlite Corporation, Bombay v. Union of India [1985(12)LCX0043 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0538 (Bom.) and also in the case of Rajan Kumar & Bros. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Order No. 303/91-D dated 2-7-1991) and M/s .Agra Leatherites Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Order No. 382/91-D dated 11-9-1991). They have contended that the Tribunal has followed the ruling rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Starlite Corporation in respect of the same item and has allowed the appeals. Shri J.N. Nair, learned DR reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants and also perused the citations relied by them. In the case of Starlite Corporation (supra), the Bombay High Court has considered the same issue pertaining to the classification of the item glass chatons. The Hon’ble Court, after going through the aspect in great detail, has held that piercing of a chaton is not essentially for it to be called a bead and the articles are, therefore, glass beads entitled to the benefit of exemption notification in question. The Tribunal in the above two referred cases has applied the rulings in respect of consignment of sew-on-stones glass chatons pierced with two holes for chatons and has negated the department’s contention and held that the item is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 51/61-C.E., dated 1-3-1961 and No. 124-Cus., dated 13-5-1983 and also to the benefit of Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. We have no reason to differ from these rulings. Applying the ratio of these rulings, the appellants’ contention is accepted and the appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.
Equivalent 1992 (62) ELT 142 (Tribunal)