FUSEBASE ELTORO LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed by M/s. Fusebase Eltoro Ltd., the matter relates to the demand of central excise duty as a consequence of classification of video projector as described in exemption Notification No. 160/86 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1986, and its non -eligibility for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 68/86 -C.E., dated 10 -2 -1986.

(2.) BOTH the sides have agreed that on merits the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the appellants' own case in Collector of Central Excise v Fusebase Eltoro Ltd., 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.). The Supreme Court has affirmed the view that the projection television sets manufactured by M/s. Fusebase Eltoro Ltd. was not the same as the Broadcast Television Receiver Sets, and was Video Projector for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 160/86 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1986.

(3.) SHRI D. Sharma, consultant, submitted on 15 -5 -2000 when the matter was posted for hearing, that the appellants have no arguments on merits of the case in view of the judgment of the Apex Court. On limitation, he, however, argued that while the show cause notice dated 14 -12 -1987 was issued within the normal period of limitation, the second show cause notice dated 24 -10 -1988 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. It was his plea that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. He also submitted that the penalty imposed was excessive and in any case the appellants were eligible for the benefit of recalculation of the duty liability after treating their prices as cum -duty prices, in terms of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v CCE, Madras, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T). In reply, Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, submitted that the matter already stands settled by the Supreme Court in the appellants' own case as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) - CCE v. Fusebase E.LT.oro Ltd. The misdeclaration of the nature of the goods had already been established by the Supreme Court decision itself.