9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. 2. Both the sides have agreed that on merits the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the appellants own case in Collector of Central Excise v Fusebase Eltoro Ltd., 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.). The Supreme Court has affirmed the view that the projection television sets manufactured by M/s. Fusebase Eltoro Ltd. was not the same as the Broadcast Television Receiver Sets, and was Video Projector for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 3. Shri D. Sharma, consultant, submitted on 15-5-2000 when the matter was posted for hearing, that the appellants have no arguments on merits of the case in view of the judgment of the Apex Court. On limitation, he, however, arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver Sets for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 68/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. 6. As regards limitation, it is an admitted position that the classification list effective from 19-3-1987 was approved on 30-4-1987 by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. The assessee had cleared the goods in question with the description hot line projections (T.V. set with screen), which was found to be mis-leading. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 14-12-1987 for the period June, 1987 to October, 1987 that the assessee had suppressed the facts by giving incorrect description to the video projectors. This show cause notice was issued within the normal period of limitation. The second show cause notice dated 24-10-1988 was issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases. 8. It is also seen from page 3 of the order-in-original that the assessee had admitted their duty liability after extending the benefit of recalculation of demand under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, which they were prepared to pay. 9. As regards the valuation, the matter is discussed at page 5 of the order-in-original. The valuation is based on the assessees invoices, and discount has been allowed from the amounts realised. The duty liability has been calculated from the assessable value after deducting the actual duty paid. As regards the demand of Rs. 3,93,250/- and Rs. 1,07,250/-, demand of Rs. 3,28,962.50 and of Rs. 1,05,587.50 was confirmed. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
