ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with Orders-in-Appeal No. 28-32/2005, dated 30-5-2005. The Respondent had exported “Handicrafts” which were classified as artistic, decorative stone articles/handicrafts. The Order-in-Original noted that the Respondent had exported granite article from ICD, Hyderabad to various countries under DEPB scheme under the Product Group “Handicrafts” (Product Code-68) and item description “Artistic and Decorative crafted stone products (Handicrafts) made out of granite” (Item Sl. No. 7). They filed shipping bills for the export of various granite articles as per the invoices and packing list filed along with the shipping bills under the above said capital DEPB heading. On examination, it was found that the handicrafts were in the nature of flat granite shaped articles with one side polished smoothly and the other side rough. The edges were also polished. It was felt that the polishing and finishing appeared to be done mechanically. Therefore, the original authority considered the item not to be “Handicraft” and held them not to be eligible for DEPB under Item. Sl. No. 7 of product group code 68. They were assessed without any DEPB benefit. The Commissioner after due examination of the matter noted that the Respondent exporter had filed a letter dated 21-8-2001 issued by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Government of India, Southern Region, Chennai, who after examining the products had observed that the respective samples along with photographs were seen and they were of the considered opinion that they were to be classified as Artistic, Decorative Stone Articles and Handicrafts. These items could also be used as souvenir and tombstone accessories. The Commissioner noted the judgment of Bhalchandra Subhedar (Dr.) v. DGHS , to come to a conclusion that the principles of natural justice were also not followed by the original authority in disallowing the DEPB benefit on the articles exported. Revenue is aggrieved with these findings and contends that the item is not a “Handicraft” and the benefit of DEPB cannot be extended to them.
2. The learned DR argued on the basis of the grounds made out in the appeal memo.
3. The learned Counsel submitted that the same articles were exported again and after due examination, the Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 49/2005, dated 21-12-2005 has held the same to be as Handicrafts and has granted the benefit of DEPB Scheme in respect of 10 shipping bills. He produced the copy of the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner accepting the items to be Handicrafts and therefore, he contends that the order passed by the Commissioner is based on the opinion given by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Govt. of India, Southern Region, Chennai and hence, the order is legal and proper.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is after due examination of all the facts including the opinion given by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Govt. of India, Southern Region, Chennai. Merely because certain machine work has been done to smoothen the items that by itself will not take away the item within the ambit of Handicrafts. This position has been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Louis Shoppe and Anr. . It has been clearly noted that an item may be treated as ‘Handicrafts’, if it is predominantly made by hand though some machinery is also used and it has visual appeal in nature of ornamentation or inlay work or some similar work having artistic touch. The Commissioner has examined the issue and found that ornamentation and the work done on the item is a Handicraft of a substantial nature. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals. The impugned orders are confirmed. The Revenue appeals are rejected.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)