1999 (8) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ground that conical speakers of Heading No. 85.18 are purchased by them on payment of duty. The said duty paid conical speakers are simply fitted inside wooden/plastic cabinet. Therefore, the product brought into existence by them by the aforesaid activity remains a speaker only and no new commodity comes into existence. The lower authorities have not accepted the aforesaid contention of the appellants and felt that they have undertaken a process of manufacture and brought into existence a new commodity mounted on plastic cabinets or which are described as speaker columns fixed with different types of speakers and joined together in a cabinet. Hence this appeal before us. 2. Learned Advocate Shri G. Shiv Das submits that the activ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they mount enclosure as two types of speakers which are called woofers and sub-woofers and are properly synchronised. Learned JDR also points out that the HSN makes a distinction between single loud speakers and multiple loud speakers. Single loud speakers mounted in their enclosures are covered by HSN sub-heading 8518.21 and multiple loud speaker mounted in the same enclosure are covered by Tariff sub-heading 8518.22. He, therefore, submits that in view of a new product having been brought into existence i.e. multiple loud speakers mounted in the same enclosure, a new product has come into existence according to the commercial parlance as reflected in the HSN sub-headings. He, therefore, submits, following the judgment of the Apex Court i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is fully applicable to the facts of this case although the commodity may be different but difference in commodity or difference in the process undertaken by the appellant and the process undertaken in the case before Apex Court does not make any difference because the scope of the expression "whether or not" has been examined by the Apex Court and that very expression is to be examined by the Bench in this case. He further submits that this judgment of the Apex Court in Prabhat Sound Studios has been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal (to which one of us was a party) in the case of C.C.E., Bombay v. Indian Hotels Co. [1999 (33) RLT 141]. The commodity involved in that case was "chocolate in any form whether or not containing nuts, frui....