2000 (4) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990.
2. Determining if the activity of recording and selling video cassettes amounts to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was initiated by the Revenue challenging the correctness of Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990. The Revenue alleged that the respondents were involved in recording blank video cassettes obtained from various sources and supplying recorded video cassettes for a fee. The Additional Collector had initially dropped the proceedings based on a previous Tribunal decision. However, a subsequent order from the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs directed the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed in August 1999.

Issue 2: Determining if the activity of recording and selling video cassettes amounts to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944

The department, relying on a Supreme Court decision, argued that the preparation and sale of pre-recorded audio cassettes constitute a manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act, 1944. They contended that the Additional Collector erred in dropping the adjudication proceedings against the respondents. The Supreme Court case cited by the department involved the sale of pre-recorded audio cassettes, distinguishing them from blank cassettes. The Court considered recording audio material onto cassettes as a manufacturing activity. However, the Tribunal noted that if a person records audio onto a cassette provided by a customer and charges for this service, it is considered a service activity, not manufacturing. The Tribunal analyzed the activities of the respondents based on the statement of a witness, concluding that the respondents were not selling pre-recorded video cassettes but were providing a service of recording cassettes for customers at their request. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the activities fell under the category of service activity, not manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved and provides a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision on each issue, maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.