1987 (3) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported Cinematographic Camera for levy of countervailing duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background: Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd. imported a 70 mm Cinematographic Camera, which was assessed to duty under Heading 90.08(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A notice was issued for short levy of countervailing duty under Tariff Item 37C of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector demanded duty, which was confirmed by an order. The appellant appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras, contending that Cinematographic Cameras were not covered under Tariff Item 37C.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant's representative argued that the Cinematographic camera was correctly classified, and the countervailing duty was rightly levied under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Reference was made to the Budget speech of the Finance Minister in 1982, indicating a change in the levy of duty on certain electronic goods. The advocate emphasized that the Finance Minister's speech supported the appellant's position.

3. Respondent's Arguments: The Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent acknowledged the levy of basic customs duty under Heading 90.08 but disputed the classification for countervailing duty. Referring to the explanatory notes, it was argued that the countervailing duty was correctly imposed under Tariff Item 37C due to the involvement of the photographic principle.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the arguments and examining Tariff Item 37C of the Central Excise Tariff, the Tribunal observed that the scheme clearly indicated that Cinematographic Cameras did not fall under this item. The Tribunal also noted the distinction between Photographic and Cinematographic Cameras in trade parlance. Relying on the Finance Minister's statement and the legal classification, the Tribunal held that the countervailing duty originally levied under Tariff Item 68 was correct. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.