1996 (12) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of "playing cards" under the notification for nil rate of duty on "sports goods" and rejection of refund claim.

In this case, the appellants manufactured "playing cards" classified under Heading 9504.00 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 73/86, dated 10-2-1986, which prescribed a nil rate of duty on "sports goods" under Heading 95. The Assistant Collector rejected the benefit of the notification and the refund claim, a decision upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The main issue was whether "playing cards" could be considered "sports goods" under the notification.

During the arguments, the appellants' Advocate referred to the HSN classification showing "playing cards" under 9504.40 as articles of table or parlour games. He argued that the term "sports goods" should not be limited to physical activities but should also include games requiring intellectual exercise. The Advocate cited various dictionaries and circulars to support the broad interpretation of "sports goods." On the other hand, the Revenue representative maintained that "playing cards" were not "sports goods" based on the Collector's order.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the Assistant Collector had classified "playing cards" under the heading for games and sports requisites. The key issue was whether the term "sports goods" in the notification covered "playing cards." The Tribunal noted that the chapter heading did not distinguish between "sports" and "games," and dictionary definitions indicated interchangeability. The Tribunal emphasized that the HSN listing and the broad scope of the term "sports goods" supported including "playing cards" under the notification. The Tribunal also highlighted the value of the HSN in classification, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in a relevant case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the term "sports goods" in the notification encompassed "playing cards" based on the wide purport of the term. The appeal was allowed, lower orders were set aside, and consequential relief was directed, subject to applicable legal provisions. The decision clarified the classification of "playing cards" under the notification for nil duty rate on "sports goods" and upheld the appellants' claim in this regard.