9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contended before the Assistant Collector that the Soni Cassette Duplicating Machines imported by them had not sound recording or reproduction and hence they were not covered by Heading 92.01/13 of CTA but the imported goods were appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.59 of the Customs Tariff Act as the machinery for production of a commodity as the cassettes obtained from these machines are commodities which are sold to ordinary public. It was further contended that the machinery imported had special features. They argued that the machinery imported operates at a very high speed which is eight time the speed of a normal tape recorder and the imported tape recorder was incapable of recording or reproducing sound. The appellants also contended that the machine imported can never be considered as cassette recorders covered by Item 37AA of the Central Excise Tariff and as such countervailing duty under Tariff Item 68 was not leviable. The learned Assistant Collector had observed that the sound waves which are recorded on master cassette are reproduced in another tape by the cassette to cassette printer. He had held that the principal of recording was exactly the same as in sound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the Bill of Entry and has pleaded that the appellants had imported Soni Cassette Duplicating Machine and that the correct classification is under Heading 84.59(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Shri Sogani has argued that the machine does not produce, or record sound but just copies the magnetic impulses. Magnetic impulses are copied from one machine to another. The machine does not possess speaker and Heading 92.01/13 is not relevant at all. He has argued that from the master cassette to the other cassettes the recording is done just in four minutes. He has also referred to note (5) of Section 16 of the Customs Tariff Act. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned Senior Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent states that there is no dispute on facts. Shri Gopinath, the learned Departmental Representative states that the Revenue authorities have not issued any review show cause notice and the benefit which has already been granted by the Appellate Collector of Customs cannot be taken away. He has pleaded that the Assistant Collector had classified the goods under Heading 92.01/13 whereas the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of his arguments he has referred to the definitions of and and or as given in Blake s Law Dictionary :- AND: A conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added to or taken along with the first. Added to; together with; joined with; as well as; including. Sometimes construed as or . It expresses a general relation or connection, a participation or accompaniment in sequence, having no inherent meaning standing alone but deriving force from what comes before and after. In its conjunctive sense the word is used to conjoin words, clauses, or sentences, expressing the relation of addition or connection, and signifying that something is to follow in addition to that which proceeds and its use implies that the connected elements must be grammatically co-ordinate, as where the elements preceding and succeeding the use of the words refer to the same subject matter. While it is said that there is no exact synonym of the word in English, it has been defined to mean along with , also , and also , as well as , besides , together with . When expression and/or is used, that word may be taken, as will best effect the purpose of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not a reproducer. In support of his arguments Shri Gopinath has also referred to two judgements of the Tribunal in the case of Raja Radio Co., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [Order No. 101/85-B-2 in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T) A.No. 55/79-B-23 wherein the Tribunal had held that Soni Cassette Printers" were leviable; to countervailing duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under 37AA, CET. There the importer had accepted the classification under Heading 92.01/13. The second judgment to which the learned Senior Departmental Representative referred was in the case of M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Order No. 202/85-B-2) dated 1-11-1985 where the importer had imported a special type of recorder and reproducer and the Tribunal had held that the same was classifiable under Heading 92.01/13 of the Customs Tariff Act. Lastly Shri Gopinath has argued that by no stretch of imagination the appellant s claim under Heading 84.59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act can be adopted since the imported item is for the purpose of recording and not for the purpose of manufacture of any commodity. He has pleaded, for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Shri N.C. Sogani in reply ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
