9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the following goods manufactured by them : (i) 15 AW 505/OOR Home Stereo System (consisting of Radio and Amplideck) classified under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8527.00 claiming duty @ 25% ad valorem Basic + Special duty as per Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 as amended by Notification No. 71/90, dated 20-3-1990. (ii) 15 AW 606/OOR Home Stereo System (consisting of Radio and Amplideck), classified under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8527.00, claiming duty @ 25% ad valorem Basic + Special duty as per Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 as amended by Notification No. 71/90, dated 20-3-1990. 2. Both the above Classification Lists were approved on 9-8-1990. Pending approval of these Classification Lists, the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als against the above orders of the Asst. Collector and the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune vide his Order dated 24-10-1994 held that all the afore-mentioned products were covered by Sl. 14 of the said notification and were subject to duty @ 20% ad valorem Basic + SD. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order further directed that the Asst. Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original No. 57/94, dated 11-5-1994 had rejected the refund claims filed by the party on the basis of his Order-in-Original dated 30-9-1993 holding that the duty is payable @ 25% and as such, no refund of duty is payable to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that since the duty payable on these products was @ 20% ad valorem, the matter was remanded back to the Asst. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equency synthesiser or any combination of aforesaid items designed for use as or in audio system; that the appellants emphasized that their products are radio recorder and they are not used as or in audio system and they are also not known to the market as audio system; that it has been admitted by the Asst. Collector that the products are having the feature of two-in-one. In that circumstances, the contention of the appellant has force, as there is no mention of a radio apparatus in the description at Sl. No. 1 of the notification, that their product will be covered by Sl. No. 14 of the notification, as Serial No. 14 covers the items other than those covered by Sl. No. 1. The Commissioner has observed that a notification has to be read as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly because of the fact that it is fitted with sound recording or reproducing apparatus, can it be taken away from the purview of the Notification No. 56/93, dated 28-2-1993. In order to appreciate this contention, what is necessary to be seen is whether the goods manufactured by the appellants is capable of being used as receptive apparatus for radio broadcasting. As far as this point is concerned, it is admitted fact that the goods manufactured by the appellants, have capacity of reception of the radio broadcasting. Therefore, when the goods manufactured by the appellants are capable of receiving the broadcasting as per the entry at Sl. No. 10A of the notification, the same cannot be taken out of its purview merely because it was also fitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
