ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, the matter relates to the interpretation of Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as before its amendment under Notification No. 115/90-Cus., dated 20-3-1990. The goods involved are Four Track Duplicating Recorders with the necessary configurations. The goods were assessed under Heading No. 8520.90 which covered Magnetic tape recorders and other sound recording apparatus, whether or not incorporating a sound reproducing device. The respondents M/s. Geetham Cassettes Pvt. Ltd., Cochin, after the clearance of the goods filed a refund claim on the ground that they were eligible for a concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1996, as amended by Notification No. 204/86-Cus. dated 7-3-1986. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the exemption covered only the cinematographic sound recorders and sound reproducers and not to other types of sound recorders and sound reproducers. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs. In para 6 of his order, he has observed as under :
“6. I find that there is considerable force in the submissions made by the appellants. I do not agree with the interpretation given by the original authority that the sound recorders and sound reproducers referred to in Notification No. 93/86 prior to its amendment covers cinematographic sound recorders and sound reproducers. The 3 items mentioned in the said notification viz. cinematographic projectors, sound recorders and sound reproducers are distinct items and the concessional rate of duty of 40% fixed under the said notification would apply to those items individually. There are no grounds to import the word “cinematographic” before the sound recorders or sound reproducers. The amendment carried out subsequently does however, restrict the concessional rate of duty of 40% only to cinematographic projector, whether or not incorporating sound recording or reproducing apparatus. However, for the period prior to the amendment, the concessional rate of duty of 40% would apply separately to cinematographic projectors, sound recorders and sound reproducers.”
2. The notice for today’s hearing had been issued to the respondents on 17-6-1997. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. There is no request for any adjournment. After going through the facts on record, we consider that the matter could be disposed of without the presence of the respondents who had already filed cross-objections and which are listed as C/CO/224/91-B2.
3. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, and perused the record.
4. The Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended by Notification No. 204/86-Cus., dated 7-3-1986 covered cinematographic projectors, sound recorders and any combination of these articles falling under Heading Nos. 85.19,85.20, 85.22 or 90.07. We find that only Heading No. 90.07 referred to cinematographic cameras and projectors whether or not incorporating sound recording or reproducing apparatus. There is nothing like cinematographic sound recording or reproducing apparatus. The cinematographic refers to the cameras and the projectors which could be independent in themselves or could incorporate sound recording or reproducing apparatus. The articles falling under Heading 85.19 and Heading No. 85.20 have no reference to the cinematographic recorders or reproducers. Heading No. 85.22 refers to the parts and accessories of apparatus of Heading Nos. 85.19 to 85.21.
5. Thus, it is seen from the exemption notification that it provided concessional rate of duty to cinematographic projectors, sound recorders or combination of cinematographic projectors and sound recorders. Sound recorders if imported independently, were not to be denied the exemption under the description in the notification as it was there during the relevant time.
6. The respondents in their cross-objections had submitted that under amending Notification No. 115/90-Cus., dated 20-3-1990 the description was amended to cinematographic projectors, whether or not incorporating sound recording or reproducing apparatus falling under Heading No. 90.07. Before this change, the goods covered by Heading No. 85.19,85.20 and 85.22 were also covered by the exemption Notification 93/83-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended by Notification No. 204/86-Cus., dated 7-3-1986.
7. The operative part of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, had already been extracted above. After going through the relevant tariff entries and the applicable notification, as in force during the relevant time, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
8. In the appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the order had been passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) without affording an opportunity to the Revenue to plead their case. As on merits, we find that the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was correct and as there is nothing on record to show whether any hearing had been asked by the Revenue before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), we consider that the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) does not call for any interference.
9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. The cross-objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of in the above terms.