Tariff classification of imitation jewellery failed where pre-amendment levy did not apply and proof of personal adornment was lacking.

Unplated imitation jewellery made of base metal was not dutiable for the period before 13.05.2005 because the tariff amendment covering "articles of jewellery of base metal, whether or not plated with precious metal" had not yet taken effect. For the later period, the demand also failed because the show cause notice and adjudication record did not establish that unplated base metal chains answered the description of articles of jewellery or any small object of personal adornment. A levy under a specific tariff entry must match the statutory description for the relevant period, and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether unplated imitation jewellery made of base metal was dutiable for the period prior to 13.05.2005 and, for the later period, whether the goods could be treated as articles of jewellery capable of being any small object of personal adornment.

Analysis: The relevant tariff entry and chapter notes were examined to determine the scope of imitation jewellery. Prior to 13.05.2005, the amendment introducing the words of base metal, whether or not plated with precious metal had not come into force, so the goods in question could not be brought within the impugned levy for the earlier period. For the period after 13.05.2005, the show cause notice and the adjudication record did not establish that unplated chains of base metal answered the description of any small object of personal adornment. In the absence of such foundational allegation and proof, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The entire show cause notice was unsustainable and the demand was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy under a specific tariff entry cannot be sustained unless the goods squarely satisfy the statutory description for the relevant period, and a later amendment cannot be applied to periods before its commencement.

---