AUTOPAL INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Autopal Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Auto -pal'), and the other filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the same Order -in -Appeal dated 21 -11 -1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE matter relates to the duty liability in respect of Tungsten Halogen Lamp. M/s. Autopal wanted them to be treated as Gas Filled Bulbs while according to the Revenue, they were separately classifiable as other than Gas Filled Bulbs. Under show cause notice dated 24.04.1994, it was alleged that M/s. Autopal have incorrectly availed of the benefit of exemption under Sl. No. 4 and 5 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 67/83 -C.E., dated 01.03.1983 in respect of the Tungsten Halogen Lamps/Bulbs claiming them to be Gas Filled Bulbs. It was proposed in the show cause notice that the goods in question were covered by Sl. No. 10 of the Table annexed to the said Notification, which covered bulbs and lamps other than those specified in Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 67/83 -C.E. Sl. 5 of the said Table covered gas filled bulbs. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur made a reference to Explanation II under Notification No. 67/83 -C.E., and the ISI Specification IS 1985 of 1969, and held that Tungsten Halogen Lamps falling under subheading No. 8939.00 of the Central Excise Tariff were not eligible for exemption under Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 67/83 -CE., but were covered by the description given against Sl. No. 10 of the Table annexed to the said Notification. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 44,35,531/ -. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) while agreeing that there was a distinction between Gas Filled Lamps and Tungsten Halogen Lamps, allowed the appeal on the following grounds : -

(3.) THE matter was heard on 11.07.2000 when Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate appearing for M/s. Autopal submitted that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Manipal Printers and Publishers Ltd. - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 64 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal had held that the Halogen Lamps were covered by Sl. No. 4 and 5 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 67/83 -CE. Reference was also made to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 784 -787/2000 -B, dated 09.05.2000 [2000 (125) E.L.T. 1233 (Tribunal)] in the in the group of four appeals in the case of M/s. Phoenix Electric India Ltd., M/s. Halonix Electric Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Electric Co. Ltd. in Appeal Nos. E/17/96 -B, E/1921/95 -B, 1027/96 -B and E/1535/96 -B.