AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases of Metal Buckles and filed Bill of Entry No. 1094/16 dated 21-5-1986 which is the subject matter of Appeal No. C/3940/88-D. Likewise appellant No. 2 also imported one consignment of Metal Buckles and filed Bill of Entry No. 3009/88 dated 24-12-1985 (which is the subject matter of appeal No. C/921/89-D). In both the cases the imported goods were assessed to standard rate of duty without extending the benefit of Notification No. 224/85-Cus. dated 9-7-1985 read with Notification No. 225/85-Cus. dated 9-7-1985. Subsequently, the appellants filed their separate refund claims on the ground that the subject imported goods are exempted from duty in excess of 40% under the said notification inasmuch as the goods imported are Metallic Embellishm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shments other than zip fasteners". In trade parlance buckles are also considered as an embellishment. To support his contention the learned counsel relied upon the following documents. "(i) Copy of order-in-appeal No. Cus. 34/88 dated 14-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, in which he has held that buckles are embellishment within the meaning of Notification No. 224/85-Cus. dated 9-7-1985. (ii) Copy of letter dated 26-2-1988 from Shri R. Dayal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, in which he has stated that metallic embellishment could be both functional as well as decorative. (iii) A copy of certificate dated 7-1-1986 issued by the Council for Leather Exports, in which it has been confirmed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 and relied upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Unival Surgical Traders v. Collector of Customs, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 58. He also cited the following cases (1) Ashish & Co. and Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 114. (2) Collector of Customs v. Shamaggaji Manoharmal - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 634. (3) Collector of Customs v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 143. 6. In reply the learned SDR while supporting the impugned orders also relied upon the case of Ashish and Co. and Others, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 114. He also cited the case of Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 7. We have considered the submissions. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. 10. The relevant portion of the Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985, which is the subject matter of the controversy before us runs, thus : 11. 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 various dictionaries the word "embellishment" it was held that when the "embellishment" is used as a verb, it con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Shri R. Dayal has stated that metallic embellishment could be both functional as well as decorative. There is no evidence on record to support the observation of the Collector (Appeals) that in the instant case the buckles imported by the appellants were essentially functional in nature. In fact, he has not quoted any evidence for taking such a view. Besides, from the impugned order-in-appeal it is clear that the Madras Collectorate also treated the buckles as embellishments entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 224/85-Cus. as could be seen from the Order-in-appeal No. C. Cus./34/88 dated 14-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Here the observation made by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ash....