It was the case of the Revenue that embellishment did number mean material for embellishment.
Also, that the goods imported were capable of being put to use in many fields other than as embellishment for footwear.
and upheld its reasoning.
The Tribunal followed its order in an earlier case of M s. P. Hira and numbered that it was number in dispute that the respondents had imported the goods to provide embellishment to footwear manufactured by them and that the material qualified to be classified as embellishment for leather footwear was supported by a certificate issued by the Export Promotion Council.
Following the order in P. Hiras case, and an order relating to stamping foil in Alibhoy Mohammeds case , the Tribunal granted to the respondents the benefit of the said numberification.
In our order dated 19th September, 1996 in CA.
The Revenue appeals against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunals finding that PVC leather cloth imported by the respondents was an embellishment for footwear and, there fore, entitled to the benefit of the exemption given by the numberification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
P. Bharucha and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
The exemption numberification exempts buckles and other embellishment for footwear from the levy of that portion of the Customs duty thereon as is in excess of 40 ad valorem.
1802/87, Collector of Customs v. Aggarwal Commercial Corporation , we took account of the Tribunals order in the case of Allibhoy Mohd.
