TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner was holding an excise licence under Tariff Item No. 37A of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is stated that the record player and parts thereof were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 145 of 1963, dated 31st August, 1983. The said notification provided that gramophones and amplifiers assembled and/or manufactured out of parts, on all of which appropriate amount of excise or countervailing customs duty is already paid, are exempt from payment of the whole of the duty leviable thereon. As the record players were assembled by the petitioner with duty paid components, the same were exempted from all excise duty under the aforesaid notification. It is stated that the petitioner removed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 31st August, 1963. The petitioner did not reply to the said show cause notice. 4.Thereafter the Assistant Collector, Central Excise by order dated 25th February, 1974 held that the Notification No. 145/63 did not apply to record players and that the demand had been correctly raised. The petitioner vide representation dated 28th April, 1973 informed the respondents that it is a small-scale manufacturer of record player covered by Item 37A of the Central Excise Tariff and submitted that from the heading it was clear that record players, record playing decks and record changer decks are included in the terms 'Gramophones' used in Notification No. 145/63-C.E. and were, therefore, exempt from payment of duty envisaged in the notification. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification 145/63, dated 31-8-1963 and the above matter had been referred to the Central Government in Review Revision. The petitioner vide letter dated 18th January, 1977 requested the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi that since the petitioner's case was identical, the demand against the (sic) [same be] kept in abeyance pending final decision by the Ministry of Finance. The request of the petitioner was acceded to by the respondents and the demand against the petitioner was directed to be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the Ministry of Finance in the case of Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. 6.The Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide Order No. 565 of 1978 held that 'what is gramophone for the purpose of tariff entry it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise Rules. It is well established that to attract sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, the goods should have been removed clandestinely and in contravention of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9. It is, therefore, submitted that provisions of Rule 10A have no application and could not be invoked in law. 9.The main thrust of arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have meted out a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner by not dropping the demand against it as was done in the case of Philips India Ltd. and M/s. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. 10.I have heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 11.Counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. None appeared....