TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules housing not dutiable under Central Excise Tariff Act</h1> <h3>SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT</h3> SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 59 (Tribunal) Issues:Dutiability of Audio Cassette Housing (CO) under Heading 85.23 of the CETA, 1985.Analysis:The appeals revolved around the determination of the dutiability of Audio Cassette Housing (CO) under Heading 85.23 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department alleged that the appellants evaded central excise duty on the housing by clandestine removal without payment. The appellants were accused of manufacturing various parts of the housing and assembling them for use in the further manufacture of Audio Cassettes, both for internal consumption and external sale.The Department contended that the Audio Cassette Housing and its parts were goods capable of being bought and sold in the market. However, the appellants argued that they never manufactured the housing or its parts without the magnetic tape, emphasizing that the housing and tape came into existence simultaneously during the manufacturing process.In a previous case, M/s. Krishna International, it was established that Audio Cassette Housing (CO) did not exist as a separate product before the Audio Cassette Tape, the final product, was manufactured and cleared with duty payment. The Tribunal in that case ruled that the duty liability on the housing did not arise since it was integral to the production of the final product.The current appeals were found to be similar to the M/s. Krishna International case. The Tribunal rejected the Department's reliance on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, which considers incomplete goods as part of the finished product if they share essential characteristics. Since the housing did not exist before the tape in the manufacturing process, the duty liability on the housing was deemed inapplicable.In line with the precedent set by the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Krishna International, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.
TaxTMI 