1998 (3) TMI 153 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding duty exemption on feature films made in different languages.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's Order
The writ appeal was filed against the Order of a learned Single Judge that quashed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision and restored the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Tribunal had set aside the Board's decision, which accepted the first respondent's claim for duty exemption on feature films made in different languages.

Issue 2: Facts of the Case
The case involved a feature film produced in Telegu, which was later remade in Hindi, Tamil, and Malayalam. The dispute arose when the Department claimed that since all prints were taken from one master negative, the duty exemption was not applicable. The first respondent had paid duty on some prints and cleared the rest without duty based on an exemption notification.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Feature Film
The Single Judge upheld the Board's decision, emphasizing that each film in different languages should be considered a separate feature film due to differences in title, censor certificates, and introductory speeches. The judge criticized the Tribunal for not properly defining "feature film" and liberally construed the taxing statute in favor of the citizen.

Issue 4: Exemption Notification Interpretation
The High Court agreed with the Single Judge, stating that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the notification's scope. The Court highlighted the significance of separate censor certificates for films in different languages and the relevance of the Cinematograph Act in interpreting the exemption notification.

Issue 5: Compliance with Cinematograph Act
The Court emphasized that the Cinematograph Act's certification requirements were crucial in determining the eligibility for duty exemption. Separate certification for films in different languages indicated distinct feature films, despite similarities in content from a common negative.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision to quash the Tribunal's order. The Court upheld the Board's reasoning that films in different languages should be treated as separate feature films for duty exemption purposes, considering the differences in title, certification, and language content.