ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay holding that the process of assembly of video cassettes out of duty paid bought out video magnetic tapes, and plastic casings, carried out by the respondents herein, does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act so as to give rise to any duty liability on assembled video cassettes, following the Tribunal’s decision in the case of British Physical Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1990 (16) ETR 463.
2. We have heard Shri Nunthuk, learned DR who seeks to distinguish the Tribunal’s decision in the BPL case, cited-supra on the ground that in the BPL case, the video cassette tape itself was imported in GKD condition and cleared on payment of duty i.e. to say that what was imported was already a video cassette tape, while in the present case, the video cassette came into existence only after assembly of the duty paid components in the factory of the respondents, and Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Sr. Advocate, Who contends that the BPL case is directly applicable since in that case also video magnetic tapes in pan-cake form, and plastic covers were imported and assessed separately and then assembled by M/s. BPL by putting the magnetic tape and plastic case together and fixing the screws supplied by the foreign supplier and it is not as if the goods imported by BPL were video cassette tapes in disassembled form, assessed as such.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the Tribunal’s order relied upon by the respondents and the lower appellate authority. We find that the respondents are correct in contending that M/s. BPL did not import video cassettes but had imported video magnetic tapes in pancake form, and plastic covers which were assessed to duty as video magnetic tapes and as plastic covers and assemble the video cassettes in their factory. Therefore, the ratio of the BPL decision is on all fours with the facts of the present case. The case law cited by the learned DR viz. the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Dipen Textiles reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 430 wherein it was held that slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of video magnetic tapes amounts to manufacture, and in the case of T.T.G. Industries v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 517 wherein the Tribunal held that assembly of hydraulic mudgun and drilling machines, at site amounts to manufacture of goods classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 do not advance the Revenue’s stand in this case, in the face of the direct decision on the issue in dispute herein.
4. Following the ratio of the Tribunal’s order in the case of BPL India Ltd. cited supra, we see no warrant to interfere with the impugned order which we uphold, and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.