Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Arising Out Of The Orders-In Appeal Nos. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 21035 to 21037 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: C/26640/2013-DB, C/26641/2013-DB, C/3242/2012-DB [Arising out of the Orders-in Appeal Nos. 09/2013 dated 12/02/2013, 01/2013 dated 04.01.2013 and Nos. 58,59&69/2012 dated 24.8.2012, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad] M/s VMB Impex H. No.5-9-1115/1, Office No.44, Kanchanjunga Complex, King Koti, HYDERABAD - 500034 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 500004 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. VIDYADHAR REDDY , CONS.
'QUEST COM', CONSULTANCY SERVICES, H.NO.8-2-598/A/7, 1ST FLOOR, ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034 For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 27/06/2014 Date of Decision: 27/06/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY Appellants filed Bills of Entry for clearance of glass beads (cone shape) imported from Hongkong. The appellants had claimed classification of the goods under chapter sub-heading No. 70181020 of Customs Tariff. However, the authorities below have classified the same under chapter sub-heading No. 70181090 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 Vs. Union of India [1989 (39) E.L.T. 538 (Bom.)] and following by the Tribunals decision in the case of Rajan Kumar & Bros (Impex) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector [1992 (62) E.L.T. 142 (Tri.)] 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 Gemology 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. [2013 (292) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 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 in to 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) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/