Tape deck mechanism exemption: attached motor treated as integral part, so notification benefit could not be denied.

A tape deck mechanism cleared with an attached motor was held to fall within Notification No. 91/89 because the motor formed an integral part of the same system. The Tribunal relied on the departmental circular and the accepted meaning of tape deck mechanism to treat the mechanism, including the motor, as a single composite unit. On that basis, the exemption benefit could not be denied merely because a motor was present as an additional item, and the Revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether tape deck mechanism cleared with a motor was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 91/89.

Analysis: The governing question was whether the motor formed part of the tape deck mechanism for purposes of the notification. The Tribunal referred to the departmental circular and the accepted meaning of tape deck mechanism, and held that the mechanism is mounted on the tape deck along with a motor and forms part of the same system. On that basis, there was no error in the appellate order granting the notification benefit.

Conclusion: The tape deck mechanism with motor was covered by the notification and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting exemption benefit was sustained and the Revenue appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a motor is an integral part of the tape deck mechanism forming part of the same system, the benefit of the exemption notification covering tape deck mechanism cannot be denied on the ground that the motor is an additional item.

---