ORDER
Shri S.S.SEKHON
1. The assessee being a SSI Unit had filed classification list 1/93-94 effective from 16.4.93, classifying “Leather Watch Straps” under Chapter Sub-heading 9113.00 attracting 15% rate of duty and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notfn.No.1/93 CE dt.28.2.93. The Classification List was duly approved on 7.7.93. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised classification list 2/93-94 effective from 24.6.93 such watch straps, claiming concessional rate of duty under Notfn.No.72/86 CE dt.10.2.86 and Notfn.No.1/93 CE dt.28.293. The claim of the assessee on the subseq-uent classification of “Leather Watch Straps” and eligiblity under Notfn.No.72/86 was denied by the lower authorites, as they did not find a watch straps to be essential for all kinds of watches, falling under Chapter 91. The present appeal is against the denial of this claim of Notification No.72/86 CE dt.10.2.86.
2. We have heard both sides and considered the material on record. After considering the same we find:-
a) Watch straps, even if made up of plastics were held to be classificable under heading 91.13 of CET being specifically mentioned therein and not under heading 39.22 ibid as articles of plastic by the Tribunal in the case of Desai Trading Co. Vs. CCE Bombay in 1997 (93) ELT 702 (T). Following the same we would classify the “Leather Watch Straps” under 91.13 of the CET i.e. under Chapter 91.
b) The subseq-uent Tribunal decision in the case of Titan watches Ltd., Vs. CC. Bangalore in 1999 (110) ELT 834 (T) which stipulated that bracelets to be not a part or compoent of wrist watch but merely an accessory and not eligible for benefit of exemption under Notfn.No.44/85-Cus has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Titan Watches Vs. CCE reported in 2000 (88) ECR 756 SC.
c) We find that Notfn.no.72/86 CE (as amended) at Sl.No.4 exempts all watch components falling under Chapter 91 in excess of 5% of duty. Since watch straps are specifically mentioned under 91.13 of the CET Act 85 and are held to be falling in this case under Chapter 91, we cannot find any reason to continue to deny benefit of Notfn.No.72/86 CE (as amended) on the Leather Watch Straps being manufactured by the appellants, especially on the ground as arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) that watch straps did not from part of the manufacturing process or enters into such process and a watch can be sold even without the strap. Commissioner’s further finding “If at all it is marketable only with strap there is no evidence placed before me in support of such claim. The appellant only point out that the watch strap attached to it” also is no reasons to deny the benefit.
3. In view of our findings order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
(Pronounced on 14/3/2001)