ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Nissan Electronics (P) Ltd., Bombay. Appeal No. E/1067/87-B1 relates to the classification of the products which have been described by the appellants as tape-deck Model 607-807 useful in car. Impugned order-in-appeal is dated 17-10-1986. The appellants had classified their products under Item No. 37 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption, under Board’s Letter No. 15/2/63-CX, dated 30-5-1963. The Department classified the goods under Item No. 37AA and held that no exemption was available. Appeal No. E/1065/87-B1 relates to the refund claim filed by the appellants on the ground that their goods which were classifiable under Item No. 37A were exempted by the Board’s order dated 30-5-1963. The impugned order-in-appeal is the same dated 17-10-1986 passed by the same Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. As both the appeals arise out of the common order-in-appeal, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The matter was heard on 7-11-1996 when Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Counsel appeared for the appellants. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR represented the respondents’ revenue.
3. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Counsel submitted that the goods involved were cassette tape and they were neither classifiable under Item No. 37A nor under Item No. 37AA but vinder Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. He relied upon the Board’s letter in which it had been clarified that the record players did not include tape play back or tape recorder and that the tape play back did not attract Central Excise duty under Item No. 37A. In reply Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR stated that the goods in question were not the cassette tape or the tape player. They were used in the car and the discussion in the order-in-original and in the order-in-appeal clearly brings out that the goods were correctly classifiable under Item No. 37AA. In the circumstances, the claims had been rightly rejected.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of what they described as tape play back Model No. 607 and Model No. 807. Both the Model 607 and 807 were of Fujison Brand and there is no dispute that they were usable in the car. In their contention dated 14-7-1982 addressed to the Sr. Supdt. of Central Excise, Bombay they had admitted that their product tape play back is distinct on the ground that it had no recording facility. It had no erasing facility and had no sound level meters.
5. Item No. 37AA which was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 1-3-1974 covers the following :
Tape recorders (including cassette recorders) and tape decks and tape players (including cassette players).
6. From the product description it is clear that is a tape player and not a cassette tape. For tape player it is not necessary that it should have a recording device. The tape player which had recording device are shown as tape recorders.
7. The Board’s letter dated 30-5-1963 relied upon by the ld. Advocate, as summerised reads as under :-
“Record players do not include tape play back or tape recorders. Tape playback, therefore, did not attract Central Excise under Item No. 37A of the CET – Central Board Revenue’s letter No. 15/2/63-CX 7, dated 30-5-1963.” The Board’s clarification referred to the record player. In the present proceedings it is nobody’s case that the goods were record player. The classification as ordered by the Department is not under Item No. 37A but under Item No. 37AA. When the Board’s clarification was issued Item No. 37AA was not on the statute book. Therefore, reliance on this Board’s circular is misplaced.
8. Assessable value of the goods in question have been referred to at page 30 of the paper book. Their price range was Rs. 400/- to Rs. 475/-. Obviously they are not the tape cassette but the equipment in which the tape played. In our mind there is no doubt that they were tape players which includes cassette players and were correctly classified under Tariff Item 37AA as held by the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account and in the light of the above discussions we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result both these appeals are rejected.
10. Ordered accordingly.