2009 (3) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 542/2007, dated 28-11-2007 passed by CC (Appeals), Cochin. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellant imported parts of snap buttons and cleared the same at 'nil' rate of duty availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No. 140. A bond was executed for producing proof of re-export within 3 months from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the case and the submissions made by both the sides very carefully. During the hearing, all the relevant documents were produced. The invoice shows the description as one part of snap buttons. Different parts of the snap buttons were produced before the Bench during the course of hearing. It is seen that all the different parts together make up the snap button. However, each part has been import .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fication gives exemption to button only. In the circumstances of the case, the benefit to be extended to parts. The snap button consists of 4 parts, a single part in isolation does not have any use at all. If one part is imported, all the other parts also, have necessarily to be imported for use. In such circumstances, the part also would be covered by entry No. 140. Any other interpretation would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X