1997 (11) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Rack Series System Model under appropriate item number of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant contested the classification of the Rack Series System Model under T.I. 33F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while arguing that it should be classified under T.I. 68 of the same Schedule. The appellant, a small-scale unit, assembled various components imported by M/s. Bush India Ltd. to manufacture the Rack Series System. The appellant claimed classification under T.I. 68, emphasizing that the system consists of inter-connected components like Turntable, Cassette Deck, Amplifier, Graphic Equaliser, and Speakers, each playing a distinct role.

The appellant's counsel argued that T.I. 33F of the Schedule only covers stereo or hi-fi amplifiers and speakers, excluding turntables and cassette decks. Referring to the decision in Mohindra Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I., the counsel contended that the use of "namely" in T.I. 33F indicates the specific items intended to be covered. The appellant asserted that the Rack Series System should be classified under T.I. 68, not T.I. 33F.

The respondent classified the Rack Series System under T.I. 33F, citing the description of musical systems in the Schedule. The product literature described the system as a high-fidelity amplifier with speakers, emphasizing the amplifier's features and compatibility with optional equalizers. The specification of the models included in the system further highlighted the integration of components like turntables, cassette decks, and speakers with the amplifier.

After reviewing the product literature and specifications, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were primarily manufacturing hi-fi amplifiers with speakers, falling under T.I. 33F of the Schedule. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim that the goods should be classified under T.I. 68, which covers 'goods not elsewhere specified.' Consequently, the appeal against the classification under T.I. 33F was dismissed.