ORDER
A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)
1. This is an Appeal filed by M/s. Desai Trading Co., Bombay against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 24-7-1987 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23-7-1986.
2. The short question raised in the appeal relates to the correct classification of watch straps.
3. The Appellants are manufacturers of different types of watch straps, metal and plastic. They claimed that their plastic watch straps are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 39.22 and ~ claimed exemption under Notification No. 132/86 on the ground that their product is an article of plastic. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector who held that the item was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 92.13 which clearly mentioned watch straps, watch bands and watch bracelets and parts thereof.
4. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the finding of adjudicating officer. The present appeal is against the said order.
5. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR appeared for the Department. However, there is a letter dated 14-9-1996 from the Appellants requesting for decision of their appeal on merits in their absence.
6. The learned JDR explained the facts of the case and drew attention Para 3 of the impugned order in which the Collector (Appeals) has explained that after the coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is based on the Convention on Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN), there is no scope for adopting the trade parlance test for interpreting Chapter Headings containing specific description of goods.
7. We have considered the matter. After the coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 goods of the same class have been grouped together to enable parity in treatment. It also provides section-wise and Chapter-wise notes having detailed explanation as to the scope and ambit of the respective sections and chapters. These notes have statutory backing. The act also provides rules for the interpretation of the schedules. Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation clearly states that heading providing the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing more general description. In the instant case the dispute relates to the correct classification of watch straps. Watch straps are specifically mentioned under Chapter Heading 91.13. There is therefore no scope for classifying Watch Strap, even if they are made of plastic, under Chapter Heading 39.22.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Appeal and the same is rejected.