Judgment:
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29-8-1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the imported goods which has been described as 'Opthalmic Rough Blanks' are leviable to nil C.V.D. under Notification No.234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 in SI. No. 7 of the Schedule which reads "Spectacles, Spectacle lenses and spectacle frames".
3. The appellants are not present to submit their case. They have requested the case to be decided on merits.
4. We have heard the learned DR. The learned DR submits that the item in question is opthalmic rough blanks and they have not been opthalmically worked. The item is required to undergo several processes like grinding, polishing, curvature fixation for focal purposes and it is only thereafter the item would be known in the market as spectacle lenses. It is his contention that opthalmic rough blanks cannot be construed and understood as spectacle lenses in terms of the Notification and hence he submits that the findings given by the lower authorities to deny the benefit are sustainable in law.
5. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned DR and also perused the appeal memo. The appellants have contended that Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation of CTA is applicable which is reproduced herein below :- "Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished for falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of these rules, presented unassembled or disassembled.
6. Citing the above Rule, the appellants contend that the item even if it is in a semifinished condition is required to be accepted as a spectacle lenses and the benefit be granted to them.
7. We do not agree with the submissions of the appellants in the appeal memo to apply Rule 2(a) for the purpose of interpreting the Notification in view of the fact that the item "spectacle lenses" has been clearly described in SI. No. 7 of the Notification without leaving any ambiguity. The rulings of the Courts are that the Section note, Chapter note cannot be applied for interpreting the Notification and its applicability will be called for only if the description of the goods in the Chapter heading has been extracted in the Notification. In the present case the imported item opthalmic rough blanks cannot be considered as spectacle lenses as they are not the same item. In order to become spectacle lenses the opthalmic lenses have to undergo several processes as noted by us. The findings arrived at by the lower authorities that the imported item does not fall within the description appearing in SI. No. 7 of the Notification is sustainable. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this appeal and we reject the same.