Judgment:
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 17-11-1987 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
2. In this case, the dispute is regarding the classification of RACK SERIES SYSTEM MODEL NO. PRO A-l & M-10 and M-10 MARK-II under appropriate item number of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood prior to 28-2-1986. The respondent classified the abovementioned goods under T.I. 33F of the First Schedule to the CESA, 1944. The contention of the appellant is that the goods are classifiable under T.I. 68 of the CESA, 1944.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is a small scale unit engaged in the manufacture of Rack Series System mentioned above. He submits that M/s. Bush India Ltd. made import of various components from abroad on payment of appropriate customs duty. The appellant thereafter, assembled the various components to make Rack Series System mentioned above. The appellant filed a C/List and claimed the classification of the above-mentioned goods under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to the CESA, 1944.
4. He submits that Rack Series System consist of a combination of different components such as Turntable, Cassette Deck, Amplifier, Graphic Equaliser and Speakers. These different components are inter-connected with each other and are inseparable from each other. He submits that each of these components has a distinct role to play.
5. Learned Counsel submits that T.I. 33F of the First Schedule to CESA, 1944 only includes "Musical System commercially known as stereo or Hi-Fi systems namely : stereo or hi-fi amplifiers and speakers and speaker systems." He submits that T.I. 33F of the Schedule does not cover turntable and cassette deck. He submits that the T.I. 33F provides musical systems commercially known as stereo or hi-fi systems namely : stereo or hi-fi amplifiers and speakers. He submits that the use of the word namely in the Tariff Entry means the items that were intended to be covered by this Entry. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohindra Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I, reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 161. He therefore, prays that the Rack Series System produced by the appellant is rightly classifiable under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to the CESA, 1944.
7. In this case, the dispute is regarding the classification of 'Rack Series System Model No. PRO A-1 & M-10 amd M-10 Mark-II. The respondent classified the above-mentioned goods under T.I. 33F of the First Schedule to CESA, 1944 whereas the contention of the appellant is that the goods should be classified under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to CESA, 1944.___________________________________________________________Item Tariff Description Rate of Addl.No. duty duty33F Musical systems commercially (1) Stereo or hi-fi amplifiers Forty per cent ad (2) Speakers and speaker systems Forty per housed in accounstically cent ad 9. The contention of the appellant is that the T.I. 33F includes musical system commercially known as stereo or hi-fi systems namely : stereo or hi-fi amplifiers and speakers and speaker systems and that the "Rack Series System" produced by the appellant consist of (a) Turntable (b) The cassette Deck (c) Amplifier (d) Graphic Equalizer and (e) Speaker. This system does not fall under the description given in the T.I. 33F of the Schedule.
10. We have perused the product literature. In the product literature, the goods were described as under : "AKAI BUSH welcome you to a great new world of high-tech music experience.
Two winning combinations of superb components engineered around the newest advance and innovations in audio technology. Quite simply, you've never heard sound like this.
Hold your breath and take a look. The elegant futuristic designs reveal their class even at the first glance.
Turn them on, and face the impact. Take in the magic of a series of AKAI BUSH marvels one by one.
As you'll see, both the systems put you in full command of big fullbodied sound like never before. The amplifiers deliver more than 200 watts of peak music power and have special terminals for the graphic equalizer and capability of two sets of speakers. The cassette decks have dolby B Noise Reduction and High density heads for top performance from normal tapes to metal tapes. The turntables have been specially designed for ease of operation and have automatic tonearm return. The straight low-mass tonearm assures superior tracking while the plug-in-catridge design allows for replacement that's quick and simple. And for that wizard like control, you have the graphic equalizers. A total orchestro to sweep you off you feet." 11. From the above description of the goods in the product literature, it is clear that the appellants are mainly manufacturing High-Fidelity amplifier with speakers.
12. The product literature further mentions the fact that the amplifier has special terminal for optional equalizer. The equalizer is a component which only work with the amplifier to permit the control of each note of the sound spectrum which are divided according to their sound frequencies. The other components as turntable and tape deck are attached with the amplifier. Under the heading specification of PRO A-1 mentioned in the product literature includes integrated amplifier model AM-A1 with turntable model AM-A1 cassette deck model AP-A1, Cassette Deck Model HX-A1, Speaker Systems Model SW-A1, Graphic Equalizer Model EA-A2. In the specification of Model M-10 includes integrated amplifier model AM-M10 with Turntable model AP-M10, Cassette Deck Model HX-M10, Speaker Systems Model SW-M40 and Graphic Equalizer model EA-M20 is mentioned as optional.
13. From the above discussions, it is clear that the appellants are mainly manufacturing Hi-Fi amplifier with speaker.
14. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were classifiable under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to CESA, 1944. The Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule includes 'goods not elsewhere specified.' As we discussed above that the appellants are manufacturing the goods covered under 33F of the First Schedule to CESA, 1944, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.