1983 (3) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty on a cine-projector assembled from second-hand parts without a Central Excise license.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 99/72 regarding duty liability on projector parts.
3. Whether missing parts affect the classification of goods as a cinematograph projector.
4. Consideration of the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation.

Analysis:
1. The dispute arose from the Department's claim that a cine-projector was assembled without a license, leading to the imposition of duty, fine, and penalty by the Assistant Collector. The appellant contended that the assessment should have been on the individual parts under Notification No. 99/72, not on the complete projector. The Appellate Collector upheld the duty assessment on the complete projector, emphasizing that the assembler had essentially manufactured a cinematograph projector except for three specific parts.

2. In the Revision Application before the Central Government, the appellant argued that the duty demanded was based on the tariff value of a fully assembled projector, whereas the seized goods were only certain parts. The appellant highlighted that without crucial parts like an arc lamp, reflector mirror, and lens, the goods could not be considered a complete projector. Referring to Notification No. 99/72, the appellant asserted that only specific parts were liable to duty, not the entire projector, thus challenging the duty calculation methodology.

3. The appellant further contended that the seized goods should be categorized as parts of a cinematograph projector, with only the projector heads and sound heads subject to duty as per Notification No. 99/72. However, the respondent argued that even if some parts were missing, the assembly of a cinematograph projector triggered duty liability, citing an explanation in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the presence of minor missing components did not negate the goods' classification as a cinematograph projector under the relevant tariff item.

4. Regarding the fine imposed, the Tribunal acknowledged that while the duty assessment was upheld, the fine in lieu of confiscation was deemed excessive considering the value of the seized goods. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the fine from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 2,000, providing relief to the appellant within a specified timeframe. The appeal was partly allowed based on this adjustment in the fine amount.