1993 (7) TMI 77 - SC - Central Excise

Whether Projection Television sets manufactured by the respondent are the same as the Broadcast Television receiver sets for the purpose of earning exemption under the central excise laws? Held that - We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Projector Vision - Projection television sets are capable of receiving television broadcasts as is being done by any other broadcast television receiver set but at the same time the two are not the same. An ordinary television set has a fixed image in the mind of the consumer in this country. One never visualises a television set having a projection-unit and a head-screen mounted at a long distance. A television set - in the imagination of the consumer - is a compact set with inbuilt screen which adores the drawing room and bed room. A television set in the market costs about ₹ 15,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- whereas the respondents product costs between ₹ 1,20,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/-. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. We, further, agree with the Assistant Collector that the product of the respondent fully answers the description of Video Projectors in terms of the Notification No. 160/86. It is not disputed, rather it is the case of the respondent that the projection television set manufactured by them receives the televised image. Video is the transmission and reception of a televised image.The product of the respondent-company projects on a screen the video signals transmitted from the television station and received by it. The Assistant Collector has, thus, rightly reached the conclusion that the product of the respondent answers the description of a video projector . Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether "Projection Television sets" are the same as "Broadcast Television receiver sets" for earning exemption under central excise laws.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The central issue in this case was whether "Projection Television sets" manufactured by the respondent qualified as "Broadcast Television receiver sets" for exemption under central excise laws. The authorities initially ruled against the respondent, but the Tribunal later reversed this decision, granting the exemption claimed by the respondent.

2. The respondent's Projection Television sets, sold under various brand names, consist of a projection unit and a screen of varying sizes. These sets are designed to produce images much larger than conventional televisions and are used in video parlors, cinema halls, universities, and other institutions. The respondent argued that their projectavision sets can accommodate various inputs like video recorders, personal computers, Doordarshan signals, and others.

3. The dispute centered around two key notifications: Notification No. 68/86 and Notification No. 160/86. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector rejected the respondent's exemption claim under Notification No. 68/86, asserting that the respondent's products were akin to "Video projectors" and not "broadcast television receiver sets" as required for the exemption.

4. The Assistant Collector highlighted the technological differences between Projection Television sets and conventional television sets, emphasizing that the former projects images outside the receiver set, making it more akin to a video projector. The Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal agreed with this assessment, noting that consumers do not identify Projection Television sets as Broadcast Television receiver sets due to their distinct functionalities and market perceptions.

5. The Supreme Court concurred with the lower authorities, affirming that while Projection Television sets can receive television broadcasts like conventional sets, they are fundamentally different products. The court noted that consumers envision a compact television set with an inbuilt screen, unlike the respondent's Projection Television sets with a projection unit and a separate screen. The court also agreed that the respondent's product aligned more with the definition of "Video Projectors" under Notification No. 160/86.

6. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the Central Excise Department, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing the respondent's appeal. The respondent was directed to pay the litigation costs. The court's decision was based on the distinct nature and functionality of Projection Television sets compared to traditional Broadcast Television receiver sets, as per the relevant excise notifications and market perceptions.