COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus M/S FUSEBASE ELTOTO LTD.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 20-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
v. 
MIS FUSEBASE ELTOTO LTD. 
JULY 20, 1993 
(KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: Section 4-Notifications No. 68/86 
and 160/80-'Projection television sets~eld, are covered under the descrip-
tion of "Video projectors" in tenns of notification No. 160/86 and liable to 
central excise duty. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent company manufactured projection television sets 
with sceens of 79' and 119'. A projection television set consisted of a 
'projection unit' and a screen. The projection unit placed at a distance 
from the screen was capable of receiving television broadcasts and was 
designed to produce images upto 65 times the size of a conventional D 
television and to accommodate various inputs such as video cassette 
recorder, personal computer/IBM, Doordarshan signals, video camera, 
video disc-player etc.These sets cost between Rs.1,20,000 to Rs.1,50,000 
each and were sold to video parlours, cinema halls universities, etc. for 
catering to a large audience. 
E 
The respondent claimed that its product was covered under the 
category of 'Broadcast television receiver sets' and was entitled to exemp· 
ti on from central excise duty in terms of notification N o.68/86. The Assis-
tant Collector, Central Excise and the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) 
rejected the claim on the ground that the product fell under the category F 
of 'video projectors" and was subject to central excise duty in terms of 
notification No.160/86. On further appeal, the Customs, Excise and 
Gold(Control) Appellate Tribnnal decided in favour of the respondent 
holding that the "projection television sets" were same as "Broadcast 
television sets". The revenue filed the appeal by special leave. 
G 
On the question: whether 'Projection Television Sets" manufactnred 
by the respondent are the same as the "Broadcast Television receiver sets' 
for the purpose of earning exemption under the central excise laws. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
315 
H 
A 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. ,. 
' 
HELD: 1.1. When the relevant notifications do not contain any 
definition or the products, the test to be followed is as to how the product 
called "Broadcast television receiver set" is'identified by the class or section 
of people dealing with or using the product. The identity of an article is 
associated with its primary function and utility. There is a mental associa· 
B lion in the mind of the consumer in respect of certain products keeping in 
view the utility or the product and also the reputation the name or the 
product has acquired in the market and among the consumers. (319-D·F] 
c 
1.2. The projection television sets are capable of receiving television 
broadcasts as in being done by a 'Broadcast television receiver set" but the 
two are entirely different products and the consumers in this country, as 
at present, do not identify these two as one and the same product. An 
ordinary television set has a fixed image in the mind of the consumer in 
this country. One never visualises a television set having a projection-unit 
and a head-screen mounted at a long distance. A television set • in the 
D imagination of the consumer • is a compact set with inbuilt screen which 
adores the drawing room and bed room; whereas the "Projection television 
set' manufactured by the respondent projects on a screen the video signals 
transmitted from the television station and received by it. 'Video' is the 
transmission and reception of a television image; it is a television image 
E or the electric signals corresponding to it and pertains to the picture 
protion of the televised programme. 'Projector' is a device for projecting 
a light beam, and apparatus for throwing illuminated image or motion 
pictures on the screen. (319-H, 320·A·B, D·E] 
1.3. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise was right in holding that 
F the product of the respondent, i.e. "projection television sets'', fully answers 
the description of "video projectors" in terms of Notification No. 160/86. 
(320-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3005-
G 3007 of 1991. 
From the Order dated 5.3.1990 of the Customs, Excise and Gold 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2614, 2615 & 
2616/89-B, Order No. 34 to 36/90-Bl. 
H 
Kailash Vasudev, D.S. Mehra and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
.. 
C.C.E. v. FUSE BASE ELTOTO [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
317 
V. Lakshmi Kumaran, A.S. Madan Rajesh Mehta 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.