Case: Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fusebase Eltoto Limited

contains the following entry at Serial No. 10: ---- "10. 85.28 (i) television sets in combination Twenty-five per cent with, video recording or ad valorem reproducing apparatus. (ii) Video monitors and Video Twenty five per cent ad valorem" projectors. ------5. The claim of respondent for grant of exemption under Notification No. 68/86 was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector on the ground that the respondent was manufacturing "Video projectors"and as such they were liable to pay central excise duty in terms of the Notification No. 160/86. In substance the Departments case was that the goods manufactured by the respondent did not come within the category known as "broadcast television receiver sets". 6. According to the Assistant Collector inbuilt technology of the projector television receiver set is different than that of a broadcast television receiver set. It was highlighted that the projection set has three cathode rays tubes whereas the ordinary set consists of only one such tube. The cathode-rays tubes used in both types of sets are entirely different in their shape, size and function. The Assistant Collector primarily decided against the respondent-company on the ground that the projection television set is not known as broadcast television receiver set in common parlance of the trade. He accepted the contention of the respondent that the projection television is a television receiver in the sense that it receives the video signals and the images of distant events and objects but he rejected the contentions of the respondents on the following reasoning :- "But its function is not confined to receiving the images and making them visible on the receiver set itself. It extends to their projection outside the receiver set. A careful (as against a projector set) is entitled for concessional rate of duty within the ambit of its meaning. There should, therefore, be no doubt that a television set which functions both as receiver and projector is not covered by the notification No. 68/86 as Amended. I find that the distinguishing feature between a television receiver set and the so called projection (being manufactured by M/s. Fusebase and which is the subject matter of present dispute) outlined in the show cause notice relate to facts which have not been disputed by the party. It is beyond dispute that both in terms of function and configuration the so called projection TV is different from TV as understood in common parlance of trade. It is settled law that for the purpose of levy of Central excise Duty, the most important consideration/ factor is how it is known in market and society. Both in terms of price as also in terms of its response to the market/society, the so called projection TV is not considered and known as a television. In so far as this product (projection TV) projects the images received by it on a medium/screen outside- about which there is no doubt and dispute - It is appropriate to call it a Video projectors." * 7. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the above quoted findings of the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal did not touch the question as to how the products called "broadcast television receiver set" is identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product. That is the test to be followed when the relevant notifications do not contain any definition of the products. The identity of an article is associated with its primary function and utility. The names of certain products have functional association in the mind of the consumers. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer in respect of certain products keeping in view the utility of the product and also the reputation the name of the product has acquired in the market and among the consumers. "Broadcast television receiver sets" and the "projections television sets"are two entirely different products and the consumers in this country, as at present, do not identify these two as one and the same product. When you go to the market to buy a television set you mean the conventional Broadcast Television Receiver set and the dealer will never understand you to mean the Hotline Projector Vision 203 etc. 8. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Projector Vision - Projection television sets capable of receiving television broadcasts as is being done by any other broadcast television receiver set but at the same time the two are not the same. 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 imagination of the consumer - is a compact set with inbuilt screen which adores the drawing room and bed room. A television set in the market costs about Rs. 15, 000/- to Rs. 25, 000/- whereas the respondents product costs between Rs. 1, 20, 000/- to Rs. 1, 50, 000/-. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Assistant Collector and the Collector.9. We, further, agree with the Assistant Collector that the product of the respondent fully answers the description of "Video Projectors" in terms of the Notification No. 160/86 It is not disputed, rather it is the case of the respondent that the "projection television set" manufactured by them receives the televised image. Video is the transmission and reception of a televised image. In other words, it is a television image or the electric signals corresponding to it. It pertains to the picture portion of the televised programme. Projector is a devise for projecting a light beam, an apparatus for throwing illuminated images or motion pictures on the screen. The product of the respondent-company projects on a screen the video signals transmitted from the television station and received by it. The Assistant Collector has, thus, rightly reached the conclusion that the product of the respondent answers the description of a `video projector.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the above quoted findings of the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal did not touch the question as to how the products called "broadcast television receiver set" is identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product. That is the test to be followed when the relevant notifications do not contain any definition of the products. The identity of an article is associated with its primary function and utility. The names of certain products have functional association in the mind of the consumers. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer in respect of certain products keeping in view the utility of the product and also the reputation the name of the product has acquired in the market and among the consumers. "Broadcast television receiver sets" and the "projections television sets"are two entirely different products and the consumers in this country, as at present, do not identify these two as one and the same product. When you go to the market to buy a television set you mean the conventional Broadcast Television Receiver set and the dealer will never understand you to mean the Hotline Projector Vision 203 etc. 8. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Projector VisionProjection television sets capable of receiving television broadcasts as is being done by any other broadcast television receiver set but at the same time the two are not the same. 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 projectionunit and a headscreen mounted at a long distance. A television setin the imagination of the consumeris a compact set with inbuilt screen which adores the drawing room and bed room. A television set in the market costs about Rs. 15, 000/to Rs. 25, 000/whereas the respondents product costs between Rs. 1, 20, 000/to Rs. 1, 50,We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Assistant Collector and the Collector.9. We, further, agree with the Assistant Collector that the product of the respondent fully answers the description of "Video Projectors" in terms of the Notification No. 160/86 It is not disputed, rather it is the case of the respondent that the "projection television set" manufactured by them receives the televised image. Video is the transmission and reception of a televised image. In other words, it is a television image or the electric signals corresponding to it. It pertains to the picture portion of the televised programme. Projector is a devise for projecting a light beam, an apparatus for throwing illuminated images or motion pictures on the screen. The product of theprojects on a screen the video signals transmitted from the television station and received by it. The Assistant Collector has, thus, rightly reached the conclusion that the product of the respondent answers the description of a `video projector.