TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that basic raw material i.e. Pancakes (Magnetic Tapes), Plastic Bodies without magnetic tapes and inlay covers (I.C. Plastic Covers) were purchased by the appellants directly from the suppliers. The original sound track i.e. master copy of the programme and inlay cards were supplied by the various music companies, who reserved and owned the quality control and inspection rights. The entire production of a particular cassette programme was to be sold to the said music company and there was no liberty to the appellants, as an independent manufacturer, to sell audio cassettes to any other class of buyer. The music company had the right to reject the products. The relationship between an audio cassette and the music company could be establish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....114) E.L.T. 770 (S.C.)] in the case of M/s. Gramophone Co. of India v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the earlier decision relied upon by the appellant in case of M/s. Prabhat Sound Studios [1996 (88) E.L.T. 635 (S.C.)] is not correct and process carried on by the appellants amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also held that blank cassette and recorded cassette were distinct and different from recorded cassette, in characteristics, name and use and the process that transforms a blank cassette into recorded cassette rendering it a totally different commodity than the blank cassette. (b) The music companies had supplied master copy of the programme and inlay cards for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... After hearing the DR and considering the written submissions made by the appellants, it is found : (a) The appellants rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 238 (NM) of 1993 filed by M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyster Ltd. which set aside the CEGAT Order No. E/199/92-B1, dated 7-9-1992 as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 670 (Tribunal). This decision will not assist the appellants since this is not a case simplicitor of video cassettes recorded being duplicated into another video cassette or/and recording or recording of an audio cassette, which were the subject-matters in the case of M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyster Ltd. and M/s. Prabhat Sound Studios [1996 (88) E.L.T....