9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f weak, are strengthened by the Decoder and are fed further to the customers' television. Normally, the signals so collected by the feed-horn are weak and, therefore, a device called Low Noise Block down Converter is used for the amplification of those signals. The Decoder also converts the signals received from the Satellite by way of Dish Antenna into useable signals. In short, the signals are modulated into proper frequency and with the help of channel combiners, distribution amplifiers, channel converters and top off boxes, the signals are distributed to the subscribers for viewing the programmes. This apparatus is useful in case of some of the broadcasters transmitting the Pay Channels and for that purpose the Cable Operator connects the Decoder after the Satellite Receiver and the Decoders perform the de-coding function only after the reception of signals by Satellite Receiver and then feeds into the frequency level which the Decoder can withstand. The Revenue insists that these Decoders are covered by Entry 8528 which reads as under: "8528. Reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had taken a stand that Decoder is not a Satellite Receiver as it is used only to de-code video signals which have been permitted in encryptic or encoded form. According to the Assessee the Decoder has no provision for receiving or processing any audio signals and the Decoder also does not have an RF output for connecting it directly to a television. The Assessee further argued that even without signal decoder, in case of some channels the reception of satellite signals is not incomplete as even without the decoder the satellite receiver can receive the clear signals like BBC, Sony, Zee, etc. The Assessee also relied upon Board's Circular dated 16.11.1994, issued under Section 73B of the Central Excise Act in which it was clarified that booster, amplifiers, attenuators, modulators, line splitters, channel filters, etc., are neither integral parts of television receiver nor of antenna and merit classification under Heading 8543. The Assessee, therefore, contended that this Circular was squarely applicable for determining the classification of Decoder. The Assessee also relied upon the decision of Canadian International Trade Tribunal which had classified the Decoder under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Receivers, after the amendment, a broad Entry was brought as "Reception Apparatus for Television". Learned counsel also pointed out that the Board's Circular was pertaining to the unamended Entry and, therefore, was not applicable after the amendment was brought about. It was also pointed out that the earlier judgment by the Canadian Tribunal in the case of Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. And The Deputy Minister of National Revenue and Tee-com Electronics Inc was no longer applicable as the Tribunal itself, after the amendment, had changed its view and had held that the proper Entry covering the decoders would be 8528. We were taken through three judgments of the Canadian Tribunal. The first two judgments pertain to the Satellite Television Reception System whereas the last judgment is in the case of encoded Receiver/decoders described as Integrated Receivers/Decoders (IRDs). From this the learned counsel argued that the judgments of the first two authorities were the correct judgments, whereas the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. As against this the learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the arguments before the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, a satellite receiver can perform this conversion function without a television receiver. In that view the Tribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue that the relevant Entry could be 8528 and held that the relevant Entry would be 8543. It must be stated that the Entries 8528, 8529 and 8543 are identical before us. This was the judgment which was very heavily relied upon by the assessee. However, we must note that the Entry 8528 underwent an amendment and as many as three judgments came after the amendment. Those three cases are Jonic International Inc. And The Deputy Minister of National Revenue (decided on September 28, 1998); C.L. Blue Systems Ltd. And The Deputy Minister of National Revenue (decided on November 24, 1999) and Star Choice television Network Incorporated And The Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (decided on November 8, 2002). It will not be necessary for us to refer to the first two cases in detail which though are relevant, are related to the Satellite Television Reception Systems (STRS). In Jonic International Inc, the Tribunal has considered in these two cases the operation of STRS in the following terms:"The experts agreed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reception apparatus for television". 12. The second decision in C.L. Blue Systems Ltd is also more or the less on the same lines. Here also the relevant goods were STRS and the law laid down in Jonic International Inc (supra) was reiterated. 13. The most important, however, is the case of Star Choice Television Network Inc., which decision was given on November 8, 2002. Here the question, as to whether the integrated receivers/decoders (IRDs) are properly classified under Tariff Item No.8528.12.99, fell for consideration. While, according to the assessee, the correct Tariff Item was 8529.90.90, the Tribunal held that the said decoder is nothing but a part of Satellite Television Reception System (STRS). It was further held that IRDs was essential to the operation of the STRS and it is necessary and integral component of STRS and STRS cannot function without it. It was noted by the Tribunal that IRD is attached to the STRS by a coaxial cable and is sold along with the rest of the components and make up an STRS. Accordingly a finding was given by the Tribunal that the goods in issue are a part of STRSs. The Tribunal noted the amendment brought about in Entry 8528.12 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se may be, the decoder. 14. On the backdrop of these cases it is to be seen as to whether the correct Entry would be 8528. 15. While the appeal was being heard, this Court had directed the respondents to file technical/product literature for the proper adjudication of the matter. The respondents accordingly have filed such literature. A "decoder", as per the Dictionary of Computer, W.R. Spencer, is an electronic device that is capable of accepting decoded data at its input and generating unencoded data at its output. The decoding process employed may conform to an agreed standard or be user-defined. The outputs of these devices are capable of directly driving external equipment such as LCD or LED-type displays. As per the information obtained from Wikipedia which is a free encyclopedia, the "decoder" is described as under:" A decoder is a device which does the reverse of an encoder, undoing the encoding so that the original information can be retrieved. The same method used to encode is usually just reversed in order to decode. In digital electronics this would mean that a decoder is a multiple-input, multiple-output logic circuit that converts coded inputs into coded out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be fitting into the description of "television receiver" but it certainly is an apparatus which works for receiving the signals for television. In our view, therefore, when we compare unamended and the amended Entries, it is clear that the amended Entry has widened the scope of the earlier Entry and what was earlier "television receiver" has now become "reception apparatus for television". If this is so, in our opinion, the amended Entry under 8528 would aptly apply to the decoder which is one of the "apparatus for receiving the signals for television". In our opinion the true test is not as to whether the television could still work without the decoder, but the true test is as to the function that the decoder achieves in the user of the television. It is clear to our mind that decoder with which we are concerned passes the signals which have been received from satellite after decoding them into television so as to enable the viewer to have intelligible signals which, at times, would be available only by way of pay channels or which would be available if viewer is a subscriber to the Cable TV. Again that is not the only function of the decoder. At number of times the signals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the unamended Entry. In our opinion, the word "apparatus" would certainly mean the compound instrument or chain of series of instruments designed to carry out specific function or for a particular use. 18. We must, at this stage, take stock of the arguments by the respondents regarding the Board's Circular dated 16.11.1994 which has also been relied upon by the Tribunal. In our opinion the said circular cannot be made applicable to the present Entry. We must at once point out that the Entry has undergone a change so as to include the "reception apparatus". In our opinion the reliance on the circular is, therefore, not called for in the wake of the amended wording of Entry 8528. 19. It was further argued that the relevant Entry should be 8529 as has been held by the Tribunal. We have seen the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal has dealt with Entry 8529 in an extremely sketchy manner. All that the Tribunal justifies in holding the relevant Entry to be 8529 is that a decoder is an essential part of the satellite receiver and as such would be classifiable under that Entry. We do not think that such would be the correct approach. A decoder cannot be held as part of the telev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
