9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/S PANASONIC AVC NETWORKS INDIA CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA-I [ 2020 (1) TMI 672 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ]. In that case also the fact recorded by this Tribunal is that the appellant has filed declaration that goods to be complete unit of CTV and same were being cleared as CTV only. As per section note 2 of section 16 of the Central Excise Act, the goods were rightly classifiable as parts and merit classification under heading 8529 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1975. As it has been held that the goods in question are not complete TV sets, it has been cleared under SKD or CKD condition, therefore, the classification under chapter heading 8528.00 at Sl. No. 204 of the notification is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is held that the merit of the facts of the case are as that the appellant is clearing the TV chassis, sub-assembly of CTV, comprising of the chassis with cabinet, speaks and picture tube etc. are not colour TV and therefore are the parts of CTV merits classification under sub heading 8529.00 of Tariff Act 1975 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra). The facts in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) are different from the facts of the case in hand as in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) the TV receivers were complete in all respects and they were assembled. Therefore, it was held by the Hon ble Apex Court that complete TV set has been cleared under SKD condition but in that case facts are not same. In that circumstances, case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) is distinguishable on facts itself. 4. He further drew our attention to the CBC circular no. 12/92/94-CE dated 3.2.1994 wherein the application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff was clarified. He also drew our attention to Central Excise Tariff Act wherein it is his contention that sub heading 8528.00 classified TV receivers (including video monitor and video projectors whether or not incorporating radio broadcast receiver or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus whereas subheading 8529.00 deal with parts suitably used solely or principally with apparatus of heading of 8528.00. He further drew our attention to the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and for checking the working of each television set. Thereafter the television sets so assembled are disassembled and then transported as parts to various satellite units of the appellant company at different places. In these satellite units, the separate components are re-assembled and, as per the appellant, some further processes are carried out in order to make those sets marketable. The issue is whether such components, which are manufactured at and transported from the factory of the appellant at Delhi are liable to be assessed as Television Receivers or as Parts of Television Receivers . . .. .. 19. On the question of the applicability of the Rules for Interpretation vis- -vis the Section Notes and Chapter Notes in the Tariff Schedule, the rule laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. (2005) 3 SCC 51 may be seen to be applicable in this case. In that decision, a three judge bench had the following to say on the subject: The rules for the interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 have been framed pursuant to the powers under Section 2 of that Act. According to Rule 1 title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods produced by the appellant can be described as parts under the goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85. In this respect, it is the contention of the appellant that the goods produced by them shall inevitably have to be considered as parts , as they are unable to receive a picture, which is said to be a fundamental requirement for a good to be considered as a Television Receiver . At the first sight, one may find force in this contention. As the test in Section Note 2 is simply that of whether the goods in question are parts , it may be convincingly said that as the goods transported by the appellant are incapable of functioning as Television Receivers , they shall have to be considered to be parts thereof. 24. However, on closer scrutiny of the unique facts of this case, it is our view, the goods of the appellant may not be said to be parts as per Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff. The appellant not only used to assemble all parts of the Television Receivers and make complete television sets, but the said Television Receivers were also operated in the manufacturing unit of the appellant and thoroughly checked and only upon it being conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 11. As in the said case also it was complete television, therefore, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. Further, we have gone through the classification opposed against the appellant at Sl. No. 204 of the notification no. 6/2002-CE the same is extracted below: S. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate under the First Schedule Rate under Second Schedule Condition No. 204 85.28 Color television receivers: (i) Where the retail sale price is declared on the package, at the time of clearance from the factory of production, and the retail sale price declared forms the sole consideration for sale to the ultimate consumer; 16% (ii) In other cases of- a) screen size up to 36 cm ₹ 1500 per set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition, therefore, the classification under chapter heading 8528.00 at Sl. No. 204 of the notification is not applicable to the facts of the case. We further take note of the fact that in alternate the appellant has taken note of the classification at sl. No. 205 of the said notification which prescribed that all goods other than colour TV receivers are taxable at the rate of 16% on which appellant has paid the duty. We further take note of the fact that in the case of Share Medical Care (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court examined the fact that the appellant is having option of two different notifications or two different acts which are more beneficial to them wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under: In the instant case, the ground which weighed with the Deputy Director General Medical), DGHS to non considering the prayer of the appellant was that earlier, exemption was sought under category 2 of exemption notification, not under category 3 of exemption notification and exemption under category 2 was withdrawn. This is hardly ground sustainable in law On the contrary, well settled law is that in case the applicant is entitled to benefit under two different Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
