TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were manufacturing television sets. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed classification list in respect of the goods manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... v. CC reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 411 and in the case of C.C.E. v. Crescent Metal Processing Works reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 841. The contention of the appellants is also that when the goods manufactured by them were covered by a specific heading, the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly invoked the interpretative rules of Central Excise Tariff. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or T.V. sets. Appellants filed a classification list, which reads as under: "1. Sub-assembly for 20" Colour T.V. sets consisting of wooden cabinet with front mask, fitted with colour picture tube, speaker back cover, plastic parts, control pannel and remote control. 2. Chassis (Mounted PCB) for 20 "colour T.V. sets." 7. Appellants claimed classification as parts of T.V. sets. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns had to be performed and some addition had to be made in other factory and the appellants had not elaborated the processes undertaken in the other factory on receipt of the goods cleared from the appellants' factory. Further, in the cross-objection filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), it is admitted by the appellants that all the parts were put together to check whether it ....