Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved for our consideration is whether the peripheral devices when cleared as such are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 254/77-C.E., dated 22-7-1977. Under Tariff Item No. 33DD of the Central Excise Tariff, the description of the goods was as under : "Computers (including Central Processing Units & Peripheral Devices ) all sorts." In exemption Notification No. 254/77,dated 22-7-1977 computers falling under Item No. 33-DD of the Tariff were exempt from duty when sold to an educational and research institution. This exemption was subject to the condition that the manufacturer produces before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise a certificate issued by the duly authorised officer of the Government of India in the Department of Electronics that the institution receiving such goods was an institution approved as an educational and research institution by the Department of Electronics. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the view taken by the Assistant Collector that the exemption was available only to the computers minus peripheral devices was not correct. Para 4 from his order is reproduced below : "4. I have considered the appeal. The notification though refers to the computers as per T.I. 33DD has to be read to mean 'computers with central processing unit and peripheral devices, all sorts'.
Therefore, the impugned order is not correct and the view that only computers and minus peripheral devices are eligible under the notification cannot be taken. Even apart from the description in the notification, the computers supplied without peripheral devices will not serve all purposes of a computer. Accordingly, 1 allow the appeal with consequential benefits." 2. The respondents M/s. Ultra Business Machines Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, had desired that the matter be decided on merits.
3. On behalf of the appellants/Revenue, Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, stated that as in the exemption notification the expression used is only "computers", the peripheral devices were not covered by the exemption.
He further stated that when the Government's intention is to cover those items which are specifically included in the main goods, then the exemptions are worded differently. In this connection, he referred to Notification No. 148/76-C.E., dated 1-5-1976 and Notification No.97/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. The Tariff Entry No. 33DD has been reproduced above. We find that in the exemption notification the expression used is "computer" falling under Item No. 33DD of the first Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It is seen from the Tariff Entry that the central processing units and peripheral devices had been included specifically. As and when the expression "including" is used, it may mean extending the area or it may mean also as a clarification. As computer cannot work without central processing unit, we consider that the inclusions of central processing unit and peripheral devices is by way of clarification. Although, in the exemption notification, the central processing units and peripheral devices have not been mentioned, but as the tariff entry is No. 33DD had been specifically mentioned, we consider that the exemption under Notification No. 254/77-C.E., aforesaid, is applicable to both central processing unit and peripheral devices. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, we are only concerned with the peripheral devices.
5. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.