Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dyna Vision Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....collector of central excise (appeals). in the impugned order, the collector of central excise held that the product 'radio cassette recorder' manufactured by the respondents is covered at sl. no. 14 of the notification no. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989.2. ld. dr, appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the radio cassette recorder, manufactured by the respondents, is covered at sl.no. 1 of the notification no. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 and not at sl. no.14 as held by the collector of central excise (appeals). he submits that tine description at sl. no. 1 of the notification included goods falling under chapter heading 8527 of the central excise tariff. he submits that the collector of central excise has not interpreted the exclusion clause provided under sl. no. 14 of the notification correctly. he, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. in this case, the issue is whether the product 'radio cassette recorder', is covered at sl. no. 1 or si. no. 14 of the notification no. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. the relevant portion of the notification no.87/89, dated 1-3-1989 is reproduced below :______________________________________________________________sl.chapter or description of.....

Judgment:

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-5-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that the product 'radio cassette recorder' manufactured by the respondents is covered at Sl. No. 14 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989.

2. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the radio cassette recorder, manufactured by the respondents, is covered at Sl.

No. 1 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 and not at Sl. No.14 as held by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). He submits that tine description at Sl. No. 1 of the notification included goods falling under Chapter Heading 8527 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submits that the Collector of Central Excise has not interpreted the exclusion clause provided under Sl. No. 14 of the Notification correctly. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.

4. In this case, the issue is whether the product 'radio cassette recorder', is covered at Sl. No. 1 or SI. No. 14 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. The relevant portion of the Notification No.87/89, dated 1-3-1989 is reproduced below :______________________________________________________________Sl.

Chapter or Description of goods Rate Condi-No.Heading or tions Sub-heading1.

8518.00 or Cassettee deck, 25% adv 8519.00 or amplifier equaliser, 8543.00 aloresaid items designed for use as or in audio14.

8527.00 Reception apparatus for 20% adv. radio broadcasting, The product, in question, is radio cassette recorder. The description of the product is not disputed by the revenue. SI. No. 14 of the Notifaction specifically covers the reception apparatus for radio broadcasting, whether or not combined in the same housing, with sound recording or reproducing apparatus, whereas at Sl. No. 1 of the notification, the description of the goods "the apparatus for radio broadcasting" is not there. The product, in question, having reception apparatus for radio broadcasting and have sound recording and reproducing apparatus is specifically covered at Sl. No. 14 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989. When the notification covers the description of goods, specifically at Sl. No. 14, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected.