9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Snap Fasteners of Article Nos. of types AA VT 3 and AA VT 5. Likewise, the other respondents M/s. Roopchand Maggaji, Madras, imported a consignment of Snap Fasteners of types AA VT 3, AA VT 5, BB 220 and BB 220W. Both the consignments were assessed to duty under heading 9606.10 CTA, 1975 at 100% plus 40% with C.V. duty under Tariff Item 68. Subsequently, by their respective letters of even dates both the respondents claimed assessment of subject goods against Serial No. 10 of the Table attached to Notification No. 224/85-Cus dated 9-7-1985 as "Metallic Embellishment". However, the Assistant Collector (Customs), rejected the said claims holding that 'Snap Fasteners' in question cannot be considered as "Metallic Embellishment" eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnament; decoration'. The subject goods are mere Snap Fasteners (Press Buttons); whereas a conventional 'press button' is a 'two-piece' one, the imported goods are four-piece' Snap Fasteners. The subject goods do not have any quality of beautification or attractiveness. These cannot find use as adornment or as decoration. In this premises, it is immaterial whether subject goods have any other value or whether they have alternative use in any other Industry other than Leather Industry. To butteress his submission, he drew our attention to the said Notification No. 224/85-Cus and stressed that vide its Notification No. 97/87-Cus dated 1-3-1987, the Government of India has amended the description appearing against Serial No. 10 of the said Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive of the fact that all other fasteners are metallic embellishments and supported the reasonings given by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order. As regards the amending Notification No. 97/87-Cus., he submitted that in the instant case the subject goods were imported in October, 1986 whereas the said amending Notification No. 97/87-Cus. came into force from 1-3-1987 and, therefore, the said amending Notification would not be relevant for the purpose of interpreting Sl. No. 10 of the Table appended to the said Notification No. 224/85-Cus., as it cannot be applied retrospectively and cited the case of Canara Workshop Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 409. Alternatively, he submitted that if it is held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, when imported into India for use in the leather industry, from - (a) so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of forty per cent ad valorem; and (b) the whole of the additional duty, leviable thereon under Section 3 of the second-mentioned Act. TABLE Sl. No. Description of goods 1. x x x x x x 2. x x x x x x 3. x x x x x x 4. x x x x x x 5. x x x x x x 6. x x x x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or claiming the benefit of Notification and mere import of any goods is not included in the expression "used in the leather industry". In other words, the test to be applied in such a situation for attracting the provisions of the Notification would be whether an article or thing imported is used as embellishment in the leather industry. Capability of being used as embellishment for footwear without any further would not be relevant for consideration because it is an article which is ordinarily used as an embellishment for footwear which is relevant. 7. In the instant case, the Assistant Collector of Customs in his adjudication Order has observed that, the appellants had not furnished any documentary evidence from the supplier of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Customs is in line with the ratio of the judgment delivered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashish & Co. v. Collector of Customs, supra. The reasonings of the Collector (Appeals) for setting aside the findings of the Assistant Collector run counter to the ratio of the said decision rendered in the case of Ashish & Co., supra. From the impugned Order we find that it was contended by the appellants before him that the imported snap fasteners are entirely different from the conventional 2 piece fasteners which have only utility value. The subject goods are made of four parts out of which two parts are to be fixed by fastening machines or hand made tools. The parts of the fasteners which are visible have decora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
