TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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" eligible for assessment as concessional rate of duty under the said Notification No. 224/85-Cus vide his two different Adjudication Orders dated 6-10-1986 and 13-10-1986. Against these two Adjudication Orders both the respondents filed their separate appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, which were allowed by him vide his impugned common Order-in-Appeal observing that the subject goods be re-assessed in terms of said Notification No. 224/85-Cus subject to verification of end-use in respect of the subject goods. Hence the present two appeals by the Revenue. 3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals, Shri J. Nair, learned JDR, submitted that the subject goods are 'Snap Fasteners' and these cannot be termed as "Metallic Embellishment". Elaborating on his submission, he submitted that neither Customs Tariff Act nor the Notification unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Ashish & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 114. 4. In reply it was contended by Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant on behalf of the respondents M/s. Sha Maggaji Manoharmal, that from the description given at Sl. No. 10 of the Table attached to the Notification in question No. 224/85-Cus. which reads "Metallic embellishments other than zip fasteners" it would be clear that the use of the words "other than zip fasteners" is itself indicative 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... x x 7. x x x x x x 8. x x x x x x 9. x x x x x x 10. Metallic embellishments other than zip fasteners. x x 11. x x x x x x 12. x x x x x x 13. x x x x x x 14. x x x x x x 15. x x x x x x 16. x x x x x x 17. x x x x x x 18. x x x x x x 19. x x x x x x 20. x x x x x x 21. x x x x x x 22. x x x x x x 23. x x x x x x 24 x x x x x x (Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985)." 6. In the case of Ashish & Co. v. Collector of Customs, supra, this Tribunal while interpreting Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 which was somewhat identical to the present Notification held that, since the word "embellishment" has not been defined either under the Customs Act or in the Notification in question, one has to turn to the dictionaries and after referring the different definitions given in the different dictionar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....serving further that the present Notification No. 224/85 exempts goods which are used in leather industry alone and, therefore, the contention of the appellants that the imported snap fasteners have multiple uses, the benefit of the said Notification No. 224/85 cannot be accepted. 8. After giving our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we hold that the view taken by the Assistant 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 decorative value. The use of the goods outside ....