1993 (12) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the 'Additional Collector' could exercise the power of 'Collector' under the proviso to Section 11-A of demanding duty short-levied beyond six months.
2. Whether the product Madhur T.V. was entitled to the concessional rate under Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 87/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolved around whether the 'Additional Collector' could act as the 'Collector' for adjudication under the proviso to Section 11-A. The Larger Bench had already settled this matter by determining that the Additional Collector could indeed function as the Collector for this purpose.

2. Regarding the second issue, the dispute centered on whether the Madhur T.V. qualified for the concessional rate under a specific notification. The Department argued that the T.V. was combined with a stereo cassette recorder, making it ineligible for the concessional rate. The appellant contended that the cassette player was supplied free with the T.V. but could function independently and was not truly 'combined' with the T.V.

3. The Adjudication Orders highlighted that the T.V. and cassette player were designed to be combined in the same housing, with the cassette player fitting into a specially designed cavity. The Orders emphasized that the set appeared complete only when the cassette player was placed in the designated space, indicating a combination.

4. The appellant's argument that there was no evidence of the cassette player being fitted inside the T.V. at the time of clearance was countered by the fact that the T.V. cabinet was designed to accommodate the cassette recorder, and the circuitry was modified to enable this combination.

5. The Orders-in-Original also pointed out instances where the cassette players were seemingly supplied directly to consumers along with the T.V.s, indicating a combination of the two products. The advertisements and catalog of the Madhur T.V. model further supported the incorporation of the stereo cassette player in the T.V., justifying the denial of the concessional rate.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Orders-in-Original, deeming them legally sound and factually accurate. Consequently, the appeals were rejected based on the established facts and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.