1990 (12) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of duplicate appeal.
2. Classification and duty assessment of TV sets with an inbuilt timer system.
3. Interpretation of the term "clock" for duty classification purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Duplicate Appeal:
The appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, filed two appeals: No. E/1852/90-B1 and No. E/1721/90-B1. The learned JDR, Shri M.S. Arora, acknowledged that appeal No. E/1852/90-B1 was a duplicate and filed after the expiration of the limitation period. He requested permission to withdraw this duplicate appeal. The respondent, represented by Shri S.R. Tripathi, did not oppose this request. Consequently, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal and dismissed appeal No. E/1852/90-B1 for statistical purposes.

2. Classification and Duty Assessment of TV Sets with an Inbuilt Timer System:
The core issue was whether the TV sets manufactured by M/s. Television and Components Pvt. Ltd., which included an inbuilt timer system, should be classified under serial No. 20A of Notification No. 68/86-CE, as amended by Notification No. 131/87-CE, attracting a higher duty of Rs. 2000.00 per set, or under serial No. 19(ii) of the same notification, attracting a duty of Rs. 1750.00 per set.

The Assistant Collector initially classified the TV sets under serial No. 20A, arguing that the timer system functioned as a clock, displaying real time in hours and minutes on the TV screen. This classification was based on the expert opinion from the Head of Electrical Engineering Department, L.D. Engineering College, Ahmedabad, which stated that the timer circuit could display real time and automatically stop the TV at a set time.

However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disagreed, holding that the timer system was not a clock as defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and did not perform regular movements linked to a counting mechanism. The timer system displayed time only incidentally when the TV was switched on and did not function independently as a clock.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Clock" for Duty Classification Purposes:
The Tribunal examined whether the timer system in the TV sets could be considered a clock under Chapter 91 of the HSN, which covers clocks and watches. The Tribunal noted that the timer system did not meet the definition of a clock, as it was not composed of two main parts (movement and container) and did not function independently of the TV set. The timer system only operated when the TV was switched on and could not show the time of day independently.

The Tribunal also referenced the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which defines a clock as a machine with a device performing regular movements linked to a counting mechanism. The timer system in the TV sets did not meet this definition, as its primary function was on-off programming, with time display being incidental.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), concluding that the TV sets with the inbuilt timer system should be classified under serial No. 19 of Notification No. 68/86-CE, as amended, attracting a duty of Rs. 1750.00 per set. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, affirming that the timer system did not constitute a clock for the purposes of duty classification.