ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. We have heard both sides on the appeal.
2. The first ground in the department’s appeal is that the assessable value of the video cassettes, which the assessed manufactured by reproducing the contents of the master cassette is the price at which the owner of the master cassette sales these duplicate cassettes. It is now settled law, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India – 1988 (38) E.L.T. 350, that the value of goods cleared by a job worker to the principle is based on the cost of the raw material and the value addition made by the job worker plus the margin of profit. The fact that copyright was held on the contents of the tape by the person who cleared the goods to the market is entirely irrelevant. The value of the copyright was not passed on to the respondent. It cannot be said that it acquired any rights on the copyright in connection with the process it undertaken.
3. On merits, we find that the second ground in the department’s appeal appears acceptable. This is that the benefit of Notification 175/86 would not apply to these goods. The Collector’s view that the respondent did not fix the brand or trade name on the goods in question, for the reason that no paper label or sticker are stuck on the cassette by the respondent is questionable. As the departmental representative points out that it is not in dispute that the logo or brand name of the copyright holder very much appears at the beginning and possible at the end of such video films. The term “affix” occurring in the notification should be considered in such a manner as to take into account its liberal meaning advanced. Clearly the benefit of the notification was never intended to apply in such a situation where a manufacturer puts the brand name of another person who is not entitled to the benefit of the notification on the products or its contents. The term “affix” has to be construed, taking into account the process of manufacture. Recording of the brand name of the copyright owner on the video cassettes in question, in our view, would fall within the meaning of the term “affix” occurring in paragraph 7 of the notification.
4. However, the appeal does not challenge the Collector’s finding that the extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) would not be applicable. Therefore, his view that the demand is barred by limitation cannot be interfered with.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.