Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prasad Film Laboratories

Collector of Central Excise vs Prasad Film Laboratories

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 31, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17573

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/17573
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jan 31, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Prasad Film Laboratories

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(118)ELT387TriDel

Excerpt

.....satnam singh, sdr.4. after going through the relevant tariff entries, we find that heading no. 85.23 covers prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena, other than products of chapter 37. chapter 37 relates to photographic or cinematographic goods. we are not concerned with the same. there is no dispute that the same were covered by heading 85.23 of the tariff. under sub-heading no. 8523.11 audio tapes in the form of jumbo rolls, pancakes, mini pancakes, hubs and reels were described. there is no mention of any end-use in this sub-heading. as the goods were clearly covered by this sub-heading irrespective of their use as held by the learned collector of central excise (appeals), they were classifiable herein. the classification under sub-heading no. 8523.19 could be considered only when the goods were not otherwise classifiable under earlier sub-headings of heading no. 85.23 i.e. sub-heading no. 11,12,13 & 14.5. after going through the facts on record and the reasons given by the learned collector of central excise (appeals), we do not find any material on record to disturb his findings of fact. we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the unrecorded audio magnetic tapes. The respondents, M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories, have claimed the classification under sub-heading No. 8523.11 of the excise tariff which covers magnetic tapes - audio tapes in the form of jumbo rolls, pancakes, mini pancakes, hubs and reels. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise has classified the same under Sub-heading No. 8523.19 which covers 'others' not covered by sub-heading 8523.11,12,13 or 14. The reason given by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise for classifying the same under sub-heading No. 8523.19 was that these were not ordinary audio tapes meant for repeated reproduction of sound, but they were used exclusively by cinema industry in cine dubbing and recording theatres for transfer of sound. The Collector of Central Excise took a view that all types of audio tapes in hubs or reels were covered by sub-heading 8523.11 and thus there was no justification for taking them to the residuary entry under sub-heading No. 8523.19 of the tariff.

2. The respondents have prayed for transfer of the case to South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

3. As the matter is old in which the classification list filed in the year 1990 is under dispute, we are rejecting the request for transfer and are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.4. After going through the relevant tariff entries, we find that Heading No. 85.23 covers prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena, other than products of Chapter 37. Chapter 37 relates to photographic or cinematographic goods. We are not concerned with the same. There is no dispute that the same were covered by Heading 85.23 of the tariff. Under sub-heading No. 8523.11 audio tapes in the form of jumbo rolls, pancakes, mini pancakes, hubs and reels were described. There is no mention of any end-use in this sub-heading. As the goods were clearly covered by this sub-heading irrespective of their use as held by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), they were classifiable herein. The classification under sub-heading No. 8523.19 could be considered only when the goods were not otherwise classifiable under earlier sub-headings of heading No. 85.23 i.e. Sub-heading No. 11,12,13 & 14.

5. After going through the facts on record and the reasons given by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), we do not find any material on record to disturb his findings of fact. We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Prasad Film Laboratories Same Subject Service Tax