2004 (97) ECC 603 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

South Zonal Bench : Bangalore

Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)

Conic Electronics (P) Ltd. & Ors

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

Appeals No. C/141-143/98

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91/97 dtd. 25.11.97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore]

Final Order No. 1214-1216/2004, dt. 13.7.2004, Certified on 14.7.2004

Valuation (Customs)

Import -- Consumer Items -- Required Licence or No -- Rubber parts viz. Half face masks, hair masks, skull masks, dinosaurs -- Once it has been accepted as parts of toys does not require licence then the finding entered into by the authorities that it requires licence as it can be used as an independent item is not a correct finding. There is no dispute that appellants are manufacturers of toys and these are imported specifically for manufacture of toys. The rubber facemasks and hair mask are fitted to the toys, therefore the same being parts of toys do not require licence as they are not consumer goods. Hence, the finding recorded that it requires licence is set aside -- Sec. 14 of Customs Act.

Classification (Customs)

Rubber parts viz. Half face masks, hair masks, skull masks, dinosaurs are considered as parts of toys and hence, rightly classified under sub-heading 9503.70 of CTA.

Classification (Customs)

Fur Cloth -- Held, in favour of the Department holding it to be classifiable under 6001.92 of CTA and 6001.12 of CET.

PRESENT :

Shir S. Raghu, Adv. for the appellant.

Shri P.M. Saleem, SDR for the respondent.

Cases Cited :

1. CC, Chennai v. International Iron & Alloys (P) Ltd., 2002 (49) RLT 207............... [Para 2]

2. DCP Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, 2003 (86) ECC 276 (T)............................. [Para 4]

3. Durga Marketing v. CC, Mumbai, 2002 (139) ELT 107 (Tri)................................ [Para 2]

4. Kumar Associates v. CC, 1993 (65) ELT 500 (Tri)............................................. [Para 2]

5. Modern Mktg. Agencies v. CCE, Hyderabad, 2002 (139) ELT 399 (Tri)................ [Para 2]

6. Munna Gift Centre & Ors. v. CC, Chennai, 2004 (95) ECC 699 (T)...................... [Para 2]

7. Saudager Exports v. CC, Chennai, 2002 (145) ELT 543 (Tri).............................. [Para 2]

8. Sridharan Diamond v. CC, Calcutta, 2002 (149) ELT 439 (Tri.)........................... [Para 2]

9. V.K. Vora v. CCE, Hyderabad, 2002 (147) ELT 924 (Tri.)................................... [Para 2]

Per : Dr. S.L. Peeran

in all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants have challenged the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 91/97 dtd. 25.11.97 disposing of three Orders-in-Original. The issue pertains to classification and valuation of the following items: