1982 (5) TMI 44 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Fonokom" under the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff.
2. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the Central Excise department.
3. Entitlement to exemption from excise duty under Tariff Item No. 33D.
4. Validity of the representations and subsequent actions by the petitioner and the respondents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "Fonokom" under the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff:
The primary issue was whether "Fonokom," described as a telephone for internal communication, should be classified as a telephone or an intercom device under Tariff Item No. 33D. The petitioner argued that "Fonokom" operates independently of the public telephone exchange and should be classified as an office machine and apparatus under Item No. 33D, which exempts telephones from excise duty. The court, however, emphasized that "Fonokom" cannot be connected to the public exchange and is used for internal communication only. The court concluded that "Fonokom" is an intercom device and not a telephone, thus making it excisable under Tariff Item No. 33D.

2. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted by the Central Excise Department:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the search and seizure conducted on 15th May 1976, claiming it was illegal and unauthorized. The Central Excise department had seized twenty-two pieces of "Fonokom" and other items. The court noted that the search was conducted with a search authorization order and found no evidence to support the petitioner's claim that the search was unwarranted or unauthorized. The court held that the search and seizure were conducted legally and within the authority of the Central Excise department.

3. Entitlement to Exemption from Excise Duty Under Tariff Item No. 33D:
The petitioner contended that "Fonokom" should be exempted from excise duty as it falls under the category of telephones, which are specifically exempted under Tariff Item No. 33D. The court examined the definitions and characteristics of telephones and intercom devices, including references to dictionary definitions and the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. The court concluded that "Fonokom," being an intercom device used for internal communication, does not qualify as a telephone and is therefore not entitled to exemption from excise duty under Tariff Item No. 33D.

4. Validity of the Representations and Subsequent Actions by the Petitioner and the Respondents:
The petitioner made several representations to the Central Excise authorities for the release of the seized "Fonokom" devices, arguing that the seizure was unwarranted and illegal. The court noted that the petitioner had other remedies available under the statute and the rules, such as appeals and revisions, which were not availed of. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the actions of the Central Excise authorities. The court also noted that the petitioner had not filed any rejoinder to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, further weakening their case.

Conclusion:
The court held that "Fonokom" is an intercom device and not a telephone, making it excisable under Tariff Item No. 33D. The search and seizure conducted by the Central Excise department were found to be legal and authorized. The petitioner's claims for exemption from excise duty and the release of seized goods were dismissed. The rule was discharged with no order for costs.