2010 (9) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Vishwanathan Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. dated16-2-1986in respect of metallic yarn (zari) as handicraft. 2. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nterpreting the notification No. 76/86 held as under : "2. The question is whether wooden furniture by itself can be treated as 'handicrafts' within the meaning of Notification No. 76/86 datedFebruary 10, 1986? It must be said straightaway that furniture as such does not quality as handicrafts. It may be characterized as "handicrafts" if the following tests are satisfied : (i)  &n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing only metallic yarn which cannot be held to be graced with visual appeal in the nature of ornamentation or in-lay work or some similar work lending it an element of artistic improvement. In view of the above decision, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence set aside and the adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority is restored. 6. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X