ORDER
G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President
1. The goods involved in the present appeal is a consignment of ‘rough synthetic stone’ imported by the appellants. On test by the Customs Chemical Examiner, the sample was found to be a block of glass reddish-brown in colour with spangles. The test report also stated that the sample was imitation precious stone. The goods were assessed to additional duty of Customs corresponding to Central Excise duty leviable under Item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule i.e. as “other glass and glassware including tableware”. After clearance of the goods, the appellants claimed refund of a part of the additional duty so paid on the ground that the goods could not be considered as ‘glassware’ but that they were correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 of the CET Schedule. This plea did not find favour with the lower authorities and hence this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant, for the appellants and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the department.
3. The contention for the appellants is that the goods being “synthetic rough stones” could not be considered as either glass or glassware and since they are not specified under the Tariff Schedule, they should be appropriately classified under the residuary Item No. 68. The contention for the department is that Item No. 23A of the Schedule is very wide in its amplitude and would exclude only those goods specifically excluded from its purview. The present goods do not fall in the excluded category.
4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. There is no dispute about the nature of the goods. They are described as “rough synthetic stones” in the invoice and, on test also have been found to be imitation precious stones. It is true that the test report also shows that the/sample was a block of glass reddish-brown in colour with spangles. However, this finding cannot detract from the fact that the goods have been sold as, and on test found to be, synthetic or imitation stones. In our opinion, it would not be correct to classify them as “other glass and glassware”. The more appropriate classification would be under the residuary Item No. 68 of the CET.
5. In the result, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
