Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Philips India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 November, 1995 cites

Itc Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 15 April, 1994

18. In that particular case, the projector machine and projection television sets are not one and the same in view of the fact that an ordinary television set has a fixed image in the mind of the consumer and the projection unit and a head-screen mounted at a long distance as in the case of projection television will not cover a television set. Further, the value of this television set as well as projection set, as held by their lordship, is at variance. The value of television set is about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- whereas that of the projector machine is between Rs. 1.20 lakh to Rs. 1.50 lakh. Therefore, the common parlance test was applied on the facts of that particular case which is not applicable to the facts in this particular case. Even if the common parlance test is applied in this case, it can never be said that the goods of the appellants, is not radio set. It still remains to be a radio set, in spite of the fact that it has got an additional apparatus which will record the sound or reproduce the same. So also the decision relied upon by the Id. D.R. in ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. Collector -1994 (71) E.L.T. 334 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that particular decision, it is held that it is not permissible to enlarge the scope of the notification. Those principles are settled. But here, by holding that the goods manufactured by the appellants are radio sets in view of the fact that they are capable of receiving the radio broadcasting, will not enlarge the scope of the notificaiton.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1