9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the points raised in the revision application, those urged at the time of personal hearing and have examined the records of the case. 2. Government observe that the issue involved in this case is whether clearance of projector heads, sound heads and arc lamps manufactured by the assessee and sold together would constitute clearance of a complete cinematograph projector classifiable under I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment was otherwise the said explanation would have read "in a assembled condition or otherwise" and not "in a completely assembled condition or otherwise". And therefore according to the petitioner by virtue of the said explanation whether the projector is capable of functioning at the time of clearance or not is irrelevant for the purposes of assessment. Government now fail to see how the use o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso contended that from a reading of Notification 99/72, dated 17-3-1972 as well as Notification No. 100/72, dated 17-3-1972 it is obvious that a combination of projector head, sound head and arc lamp is not classifiable as parts of cinematograph projector. According to the petitioner the practice all along had been to assess the combination of projector head, sound head and arc lamp whenever they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er are necessary for the functioning of the projector and are therefore not mere accessories. 5. In view of the above, the Appellcate Collector has rightly held that the projector head, sound head and arc lamp cleared together ought to pay central excise duty at the rates leviable on parts of cinematograph projector under Item 37B(b) of Central Excise Tariff. The revision application is acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
