9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sivakumar, Addl.Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M.V. Ravindran; 1. These two appeals are disposed by a common order as they raise a very same issue of law and facts. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that both the appellants herein are manufacturer of Playing Cards, Puzzle Games etc falling under Chapter No.95 of the Schedule 2 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants herein had from April 2011 claiming benefit of payment of duty to the extent of 5% as provided under Notification No.02/2011-CE, dt.01.03.2011 vide Entry No.75. During the course of Audit in year 2011, the audit officers were of the view that the said benefit of Notification No.02/2011-CE, dt.01.03.2011 is not applicable to the appellant s product Playing Cards . A show cause notice was issued directing the appellant to show cause as to why the benefit as claimed by the appellant be not denied to them and differential duty be not demanded along with interest and penalties be not imposed. The appellant contested the issue on merit before the lower authorities. The adjudicating authority, after following the due process of law, confirmed the demand raised along with int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he information obtained under RTI act in respect of the appellant s factory at Bombay i.e. Parksons Graphics Pvt. Ltd. on TM Printers clearly substantiate that the Mumbai Commissionerate has accepted the Playing Cards as sports goods. 5. Ld.Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the description of Sr.No.75 to Notification No. 02/2011-CE, dt.01.03.2011. It is his submission that the sports goods as mentioned in the description should have always a relation to the physical activity. It is his submission that the playing cards do not get classified under sports goods as there is no physical activity engaged in playing cards. He would then draw our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Funskool (I) Ltd - 2002 (150) ELT 1150 (Tri-Del) and more specifically Para No.5 and submit that the Bench has held that Chess Boards, Pieces and Chinese Checkers are sports goods as they do not require any bodily exercise in their use and therefore will be classifiable under Chapter Heading No.95.04. It is his submission that the exemption was denied in respect of such goods by the Tribunal. He would submit that the ratio laid down by the said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any further sub-heading number and would mean that all products falling under Chapter 95 which are considered as sports goods are eligible for exemption other than articles and equipments for general physical exercise. The plain interpretation of said notification would indicate that the appellant is eligible to avail the said benefit of notification if his product falls under Chapter 95. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the appellant s product Playing Cards is classifiable under Chapter 95 and more specifically under Chapter sub-heading No.95.04. If that be the case, we are of the view that the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant. 11. Besides the above findings, we find that identical issue in respect of playing cards was under the consideration of the Tribunal in the case of Esbee Playing Card Co (supra). The Bench was considering identical entries in predecessor Notification No. 73/86-CE, dt.10.02.1986. We would gainfully reproduce entire order of the Tribunal. The appellants manufactured Playing cards classifiable under Heading 9504.00. In their two classification lists respectively dated 1-3-1986 and 1-4-1986, they claimed the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the classification of playing cards under the Heading 95.04 thereby acknowledging that playing cards were `games and sports requisites`. The issue here is whether the description occurring in the notification namely sports goods would cover playing cards or not. The chapter heading does not make any distinction between sports and games . Chapter notes also do not provide any insight into such distinction. The dictionary definition produced by the ld. Advocate would indicate that these terms are used inter-changeably. Therefore going by the plain description it would appear that all the goods falling under Heading 95.04 would qualify under this description. The Collector has relied upon trade parlance in observing that playing cards are not `sports goods. The Assistant Collector has not made such observation. It is not known as to what source has the Collector relied upon. The appellants have placed on record two affidavits indicating that such goods are sold in sports goods shops. As regards the Collector s observation that making classification regard should be had to the popular meaning, we observe that where the guidance can be had from the wording of the tariff i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
