LAWS(CE)-2003-3-262

BPL SANYO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs. CCE

Decided On March 03, 2003
Bpl Sanyo Technologies Ltd. Appellant
V/S
CCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the partly.

(2.) Smt. Rukmani Menon, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the disputed item is Radio Cassette Recorder falling under Chapter sub heading 8527.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. She said that there is no justification to deny the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 48/94. She further submitted that the very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune . In this context, she relied upon the finding portion of the said decision which reads as under: The classification of the goods under 85.27 is not at all in dispute. There is no doubt that the goods manufactured by the appellants are for the purpose of reception of radio broadcasting. But, at the same time, it is fitted with the equipment which will record sound and it is also fitted with the mechanism of reproducing the same. Therefore, when the goods manufactured by the appellants are capable of receiving the broadcasting as per the entry at SI. No. 10A of the notification the same cannot be taken out of its purview merely because it was also fitted with a sound recording or reproducing apparatus. The mere fact that it is also attached with the sound reproducing system, will not take it away from the expression 'radio sets'... . She fairly conceded that the said Notification No. 48/94 was amended by Notification No. 6/96 -CE dated 20.3.1996 with Explanation which is as under - Explanation - For the purpose of this notification, "Radio sets including transistor sets" means such apparatus only as have the facility of receiving radio signals and converting the same into audio output with no other additional facility like sound recording or reproducing or clock in the same housing or attached to it. She pointed out that an explanation in the amended notification is prospective and applicable from 20.3.1996 onwards. She also said that the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1998 (97) ELT A134.

(3.) Shri Narasimha Murthy, JDR for Revenue tried to justify the action of the Department by referring to the subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Co -Makers v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2000 (124) ELT 683 (T). He fairly conceded that the subsequent decision of the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that earlier view in the case of Philips India (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court.