TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are having in-built facility like sound recording and reproducing appliances. The appellants classified their goods under Chapter 8527.00 and claimed benefit of Notification 57/93, dated 28-2-1993 which allows concessional rate of duty to radio sets including transistor sets at 10% ad valorem. However, the ld. Assistant Collector denied this concessional rate of duty on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were not radio sets/transistor sets in view of the fact that they were also having facilities of sounding and reproducing the same. Their classification lists, however, approved under Chapter 8527.00, but they were denied the benefit of abovesaid notification. 3. Against that order, they approached the Collector (Appeals) which resulted in the impugned order. The Collector (Appeals) held that the notification mentions transistor sets and radio sets. He held that the description given in the tariff is not material and irrespective of that description, the description in the notification alone has to be taken into consideration. He therefore, held that in common parlance as well as in the trade people do not consider radio sets and radio cassette records or stere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made : Other radio-broadcast receivers, including apparatus capable of receiving also radio-telephony or radio-telegraphy." 9. He pointed out that in clause B domestic radio receivers of all kinds are included in sound recording or reproducing apparatus or a clock. On the same analogy, it was his contention that merely because these radio sets were fixed with sound recording or reproducing apparatus they will not be taken out of the purview of the exemption notification. 10. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions : 1. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 306 (Tribunal) - Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Jayashree Insulators; 2. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 186 (Tribunal) - Collector of Customs v. Blue Star Ltd. 3. 1995 (56) ECR 117 (Tribunal) - Twenty First Century Printers v. Collector of Customs, Bombay; 4. 1990 (47) E.L.T. 68 - Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Customs; and 5. 1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 - Neffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 11. Relying on the abovesaid decisions, the Ld. Sr. Advocate contended before us that merely because the goods, in question, can perform the function of sound recording or reproducing it will not ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched with sound recording or reproducing apparatus. Hence, he justified the orders passed by the lower authorities. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions : 1. 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (SC) = 1994 (4) RLT 323-Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad; 2. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 474 - Rajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur; 3. 1993 (10) RLT 327 - Sri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur Another; and 4. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 - Collector of Central Excise v. Fusebase Eltoto Ltd. In a [rejoinder], the ld. Advocate contended that even if the common trade parlance meaning is taken, still the same does not help the respondents in any way. He, further, submitted that principle adopted for classification under tariff heading is clearly applicable for the purpose of notification. In this connection, he drew our attention to the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 (supra). 13. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The point that arises for determination is whether the benefit of Notification No. 57/93 can be exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be taken out of the purview of radio sets including transistor sets within the meaning of above notification. The main function of the radio sets, i.e. receiving the broadcasting, is fulfilled by the goods manufactured by the appellants in this case. Hence, the mere fact that it is also attached with the sound reproducing system, will not take it away from the expression `radio sets . The same principle was followed by the Tribunal in a decision reported in 1995 (56) ECR 117. In that particular case at para 22, the Tribunal held as follows : The benefit cannot be denied due to the addition of DCP Platen Cutter/Creaser in view of several judgments of Tribunal which have taken the consistent view that the exemption to a machine based on a specific use or function is not to be denied on the ground that a machine is capable of other use or function also". 16. So also in the decision reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1103, the Tribunal held that Notification 11/77-Cus. does not state that the automatic film processor covered therein should be exclusively for film processing only and, therefore, the imported machine which is automatic film processor and in addition, film proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods of the appellants, is not radio set. It still remains to be a radio set, in spite of the fact that it has got an additional apparatus which will record the sound or reproduce the same. So also the decision relied upon by the ld. D.R. in ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 334 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that particular decision, it is held that it is not permissible to enlarge the scope of the notification. Those principles are settled. But here, by holding that the goods manufactured by the appellants are radio sets in view of the fact that they are capable of receiving the radio broadcasting, will not enlarge the scope of the notificaiton. 19. The ld. S.D.R. also relied upon the decision reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 323 (supra) wherein it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the expert opinion on the facts filed by the experts is of no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any technical literature or authority. It was also held that an exemption notification is to be construed strictly and the person claiming exemption must establish his claim. Applying the above-said principle, it is seen that even the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
