LexM/S SALORA INTERNATIGNAL LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 963
MIS SALORA INTERNATIGNAL LTD.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
(Civil Appeal No. 4427 of 2003)
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
[D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985:
A
8
First Schedule - Tariff Entry 8528 or 8529 - 'Television c
Receivers' or 'Parts' thereof - Components of Television sets
- Manufactured by assessee - Assembled in factory itself to
check the working of each television set - Then television sets
disassembled and transported as parts to various satellite
units of the assessee where the separate components are
0
reassembled - Held: The consequence of this is that the goods
assembled at the satellite units would be identifiably the same
as those assembled together by the assessee in its factory
for the purpose of testing, as all such parts are already
numbered and matched - This element of identifiability shall
E
take the goods manufactured by the assessee away from
being classified as 'parts', and they will be classified as
identifiable 'Television Receivers' and, as such, rightly
classified by Revenue under Tariff Entry 8528.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:
F
Tariff Entries in First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 - Interpretation of - Held: Resort must first be had
only to the particular tariff entries, along with the relevant
Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear picture
G
emerges - It is only in the absence of such a picture emerging,
that recourse can be made to the Rules for Interpretation - In
the instant case, Section Note 2 of Section XVI being not
applicable, there is no bar to application of r.2 of the Rules
963
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 7 S.C.R.
A for Interpretation to the goods produced and transported by
assessee and in terms of this Rule the said goods do, in fact,
possess the essential character of 'Television Receivers' -
Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff.
8
The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of various
components of television sets, was issued a show-cause
notice dated 31.3.1990 as to why the goods
manufactured by it were not liable to be classified under
sub-heading 8528.00 of the Tariff as 'Television Receivers'
C rather than under Entry 8529.00 as 'parts' of the same.
Ultimately, the Collector (Appeals), and the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal accepted the case of the Revenue and
held the goods manufactured by the assessee liable to
be classified under Tariff Entry 8528 as 'Television
0 Receivers' rather than under Tariff Entry 8529 as 'parts'
thereof.
Dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As regards the applicability of the Rules
E for Interpretation vis-a-vis the Section Notes and Chapter
Notes in the Tariff Schedule, resort must first be had only
to the particular tariff entries, along with the relevant
Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear picture
emerges. It is only in the absence of such a picture
F emerging, that recourse can be made to the Rules for
Interpretation. [para 19 and 20] (973-F; 974-C-D]
G
H
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Simplex
Mills Co. Ltd. 2005 (2) SCR 441 = (2005) 3 SCC 51 - relied
on.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. MIS Sony India Ltd. 2008
(13) SCR 873 = (2008) 13 SCC 145 - distinguished.
Union of India vs. Tara Chand Gupta {1971) 1 SCC 486
- cited.
SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF
965
CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
1.2 In the matter at hand, the entire case of the
A
Revenue is based on an application of r. 2(a) of the Rules
for Interpretation of Tariff 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
B
case, the relevant Section Note is Section Note 2 to
Section XVI of the Tariff, which contains a clear
stipulation to the effect that 'parts' of goods mentioned
in the Chapters specified therein, shall in all cases be
classified in their respective heading. [para 21-22] [974- c
D-E; 975-A, B]
1.3 In view of the unique facts of the instant case, the
goods of the appellant may not be said to be 'parts' as
per Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff. The
appellant not only used to assemble all parts of the D
Television Receivers and make complete television sets,
but the said Television Receivers were also operated in
the manufacturing unit of the appellant and thoroughly
checked and onExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.