9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 reproducting apparatus; video monitors and video projectors" 3. It was, however, the claim of the Assessee that Decoder will be covered under Entry 8543 which is as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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 Heading 8543.90 of the Canadian Customs Tariff. It was pointed out that even Madras Customs House has classified the System Decoder under Sub-heading 8543.90 only. Ultimately, the Assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 suggested that the Tribunal was correct in accepting the alternative plea of the assessee that the correct Entry would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is properly classified in sub-heading 8528.12 as "colour 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision." .(emphasis supplied) In short the Canadian Tribunal has held Entry 8528 to be the proper Entry to cover the IRD or, as the case 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 reverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In short, before making a full use of Television, the signals which are received by the dish-antenna are passed through the decoder which does the function of decoding the encoded signals so that the viewer can watch them. Under such circumstances it is clear that it become "reception apparatus for television". It may be that even without the decoder the television may work but in order to enjoy the television in a more meaningful manner, as also for its complete utilization the decoder is required. It may not 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 witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is not a "satellite receiver". There can be no quarrel with this argument regarding the function of the decoder. However, what we are at pains to point out is the effect of amendment which has undoubtedly widened the scope of the Entry 8528. The argument put forward by the respondent would have been a sound argument had the Entry 8528 been restricted to "television receivers". However, now the Entry is not restricted to "television receivers" and has been widened into "reception apparatus for television". The thrust is on the word "reception apparatus", as against the thrust on the word "receiver" 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
