This appears to be a common beginning exercise in model theory (I found it both in Chang & Keisler and also in Manzano's Model Theory). It's not difficult to see that there is an embedding of $\langle \mathbb{N}, \leq, +, 0 \rangle$ into $\langle \mathbb{N}, \leq, \times, 1 \rangle$; just take the function $h(x) = 2^x$ (or something similar). On the other hand, it's also not very difficult (I think!) to see that the converse does not hold, for, if there were such an embedding $h$, then both $h(1) = 0$ and $h(0) = 0$, meaning that $h$ is not injective (and thus is not actually an embedding). But what about an embedding of $\langle \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}, \leq, \times, 1 \rangle$ into $\langle \mathbb{N}, \leq, +, 0 \rangle$?
It seems to me that there is no such embedding as well, but I can't work out an argument showing this impossibility. Clearly the above argument won't work, because it depended on $h(0)$. I thought of trying to show that there is an existential formula that's verified by the latter but not by the former, or conversely a universal formula verified by the former but not by the latter, but couldn't think of anything. I suppose there are other ways of showing this?
Any hints?
You are right. There is no such embedding and the argument to show this is quite simple. For, say there is such an embedding $\varepsilon : \langle \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}, \leq, \times, 1 \rangle \to \langle \mathbb{N}, \leq, +, 0 \rangle$. As a contradiction, I show that for each natural number $N \ge 1$, $\varepsilon(N+1)$ cannot itself be a natural number.
Denote $s \times t$ as simply $st$ and fix any natural number $x \ge 2$. Now, $Nx+x-1 < (N+1)x$. Also, $\varepsilon$ is injective and order/function-preserving. So, $\varepsilon(Nx+x-1) < \varepsilon((N+1)x) = \varepsilon(N+1) + \varepsilon(x)$. Thus, we have $\varepsilon(Nx+x-1) - \varepsilon(x) < \varepsilon(N+1)$.
Next, between $x$ ... $Nx+x-1$, there are(is) obviously $Nx-1$ distinct natural number(s) including $x$. But then, as $\varepsilon$ is injective and order-preserving, we must also have at least $Nx-1$ natural numbers between $\varepsilon(x)$ ... $\varepsilon(Nx+x-1)$ including $\varepsilon(x)$.
Hence, $Nx-1 \leq \varepsilon(Nx+x-1) - \varepsilon(x) < \varepsilon(N+1)$. Since this is true for all $x \geq 2$, $\varepsilon(N+1)$ must necessarily be larger than all natural numbers. So it cannot be one itself.