9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce it was only an accessory and not a component part of C.T. Scan/Ultra sound camera. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the Asstt. Collector's finding that `multi-format camera' being a complete item in itself and the disputed `Fidelity Cassettes' being only an accessory of such cameras, it was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94, dated 3-6-1994. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri N. Singh, Ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Multi-format Cameras. He added that the imported "Fidelity Cassettes" being essential components of such cameras, they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94, dated 3-6-1994. He stated that the Customs authorities had allowed the clearance of two earlier consignments imported by the appellants by extending the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) but in respect of the disputed consignment they had taken the incorrect and illegal stand that the `cassettes' in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in this case is whether "High Fidelity Multi-image Cassette" which holds film meant for exposure in a "Multi-image Camera" can be deemed as eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94, dated 3-6-1994. 5. It is seen that the Notification No. 65/88 was amended by Notification No. 123/94, dated 3-6-1994 to include "Automatic/Laser multi image and multiformat cameras" at Sl. No. 94 in List (C) covering "other medical equipments" in Notification No. 65/88. The following proviso was also added after the Table annexed to the notification : "Provided that the component parts of the goods mentioned in the Table above shall be exempted from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule, as is in excess of 15% ad valorem, when imported into India for the manufacture of the said goods." 6. In order to appreciate the considerations which weighed with the Collector (Appeals) in arriving at the finding that the "multi-image and Multi format Camera is a complete product in itself and "Film Cassette" is in the nature of an accessory and not a component part of such camera. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification 123/94 and is liable to levy of duty on merits, and reject the appeal." 7. The appellants case is that the "Fidelity Cassette" is an essential component of "Multi-format camera" since the camera cannot be operated without the cassettes which are exclusively designed for holding the film to be exposed in the camera. It has been argued that the impugned order holding that the "Cassette" in question in the nature of accessory is contrary to the definition of "accessory". It has also been contended that the benefit of Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) having been extended to the appellants in respect of two earlier consignments the customs authorities were bound to extend the exemption for subsequent imports. In this regard it is seen that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Kashmir Vanaspati (supra) relied upon by the appellants, the Tribunal while defining the scope of the term "component part" had held that a component part goes into composition of another article. The appellants have also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kumudam Printers (P) Ltd. v. Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the machine, but that by no stretch of imagination can lead to the conclusion that plates and black shields are part and parcel of the machine. For illustration, film or roll is required for functioning of a camera, or petrol is required for running of car, or ribbon is required for functioning of a typewriter, but neither the film nor petrol nor ribbon can be considered as part and parcel of camera, car or typewriter. The appellate authority has recorded a clear-cut finding that even without plates and black shields, the photo-copying machine is a complete machine and liable for payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 33D. The appellate authority has also recorded a finding that supply of plates and black shields are not dependent upon a particular machine, but are supplied in accordance with the needs of the customers. The appellate authority further recorded a finding that customers can purchase plates and black shields separately as and when need arises. These findings of facts are not disturbed by the reviewing authority and in our judgment, on strength of these findings, the conclusion is inescapable that the value of the plates and black shields cannot be included while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment in terms of Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) in respect of the disputed consignment of "Fidelity Cassettes". In support of their contention they have placed reliance on the Tribunal's order in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II (supra) wherein it has been held that in respect of an issue which is once decided and accepted by way of not challenging the same before the appellate authority, any subsequent notice raising it on grounds on which earlier adjudication proceedings and orders passed thereunder had assumed finality has to be rejected ex facie as not sustainable. It is seen that the earlier consignments of "Fidelity Cassettes" were only allowed to be cleared after assessment at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) and the question of applicability of the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) in respect of the said goods was not decided as a result of any quasi-judicial proceedings. Hence, we do not find much force in the appellants contentions that having extended the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 65/88 (as amended) in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
