TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D condition) and such colour TV sets were classifiable under Sub-heading 8528.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as per Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff and duty was chargeable at 'specific rates' as applicable by Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 (sl. No. 204). Therefore, duty was proposed to be demanded along with interest and penal proviso was also passed against the appellant as well as their Director, Shri Vishal Gupta. The contention of the appellant stating that these are the parts of the colour TV sets and same are classifiable under sub heading 8529.00. But the demand was confirmed against the appellant. The matter came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final order no. A/57508-57530/2013-EX(DB) dated 7.8.2013 remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. v CCE New Delhi 2012 (284) ELT 3 (SC). In denovo proceedings again the demand was confirmed classifying the product under sub heading 8528.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Consequently, the demand was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Share Medical Care v Union of India 2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC) in support of his contention. 6. On the other hand learned AR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and heavily relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Panasonic AVC Network India Co Ltd. in Central Excise appeal no. 70167/2016 wherein vide final order number 70073/2020 dated 10.01.2020 this Tribunal after following the decision in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) held that appellant is liable to pay duty as complete TV sets at Sl. No. 204 of the notification no. 6/2002 dated. 7. Heard the parties considered the submission. 8. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides we find that this is the second round of litigation and in earlier round of litigation this Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication in the light of the declaration of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra). The learned adjudicating authority in the impugned order has examine the same and observed as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire case of the Revenue is based on an application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation to the goods produced by the appellant, however, the applicability of this Rule cannot be established unless the classification is first tested against the relevant Section and Chapter Notes. In this case, the relevant Section Note is Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff, as reproduced above. The same may be reproduced again here for the purpose of a closer examination: "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not being parts of the articles of heading 84.84, 85.44, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to the following rules : a. parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85 (other than headings 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings; b. ..." [Emphasis added] 22. As can be seen from the above, the clear stipulation contained in Section Note 2 is to the effect that 'parts' of goods mentioned in the Chapters specified therein, shall in all cases be classified in their respective heading. In that light, the fundamental enq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue it is very much clear that the appellant was not assembling the sub assemblies, testing them for quality, marking part number and then dissembling and transporting to the OEMs which clearly say that unless and until the parts were assembled it cannot be termed as complete television." 10. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) is somewhat different wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the complete TV was assembled thereafter it was tested and dissembled and cleared in SKD condition but it is not in the case in hand. In those circumstances, the clarification adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Salora International Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Further, we find that the learned AR has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Panasonic AVC Network India Co Ltd. (supra). In that case also the fact recorded by this Tribunal is that the appellant has filed declaration that goods to be complete unit of CTV and same were being cleared as CTV only. Further the observation of this Tribunal was as under: "Appellant has complete facility to manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to deal with classification of assembly and sub assemblies when they are cleared as parts and they are not ready to be used as CTV which has been explained in the facts and circumstances of the case by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order itself. As per section note 2 of section 16 of the Central Excise Act, the goods were rightly classifiable as parts and merit classification under heading 8529 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1975. As it has been held that the goods in question are not complete TV sets, it has been cleared under SKD or CKD condition, therefore, the classification under chapter heading 8528.00 at Sl. No. 204 of the notification is not applicable to the facts of the case. We further take note of the fact that in alternate the appellant has taken note of the classification at sl. No. 205 of the said notification which prescribed that all goods other than colour TV receivers are taxable at the rate of 16% on which appellant has paid the duty. We further take note of the fact that in the case of Share Medical Care (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the fact that the appellant is having option of two different notifications or two different acts which....