M/S SALORA INTERNATIGNAL LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

                    [2012] 7 S.C.R. 963


           MIS SALORA INTERNATIGNAL LTD.                          A
                              v.
  COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
          (Civil Appeal No. 4427 of 2003)

                   SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
                                                                  8
           [D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

    CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985:

     First Schedule - Tariff Entry 8528 or 8529 - 'Television     c
Receivers' or 'Parts' thereof - Components of Television sets
- Manufactured by assessee - Assembled in factory itself to
check the working of each television set - Then television sets
disassembled and transported as parts to various satellite
units of the assessee where the separate components are           0
reassembled - Held: The consequence of this is that the goods
assembled at the satellite units would be identifiably the same
as those assembled together by the assessee in its factory
for the purpose of testing, as all such parts are already
numbered and matched - This element of identifiability shall      E
take the goods manufactured by the assessee away from
being classified as 'parts', and they will be classified as
identifiable 'Television Receivers' and, as such, rightly
classified by Revenue under Tariff Entry 8528.

    INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:                                   F

     Tariff Entries in First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 - Interpretation of - Held: Resort must first be had
only to the particular tariff entries, along with the relevant
Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear picture         G
emerges - It is only in the absence of such a picture emerging,
that recourse can be made to the Rules for Interpretation - In
the instant case, Section Note 2 of Section XVI being not
applicable, there is no bar to application of r.2 of the Rules
                             963                                  H
    964        SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012] 7 S.C.R.


A for Interpretation to the goods produced and transported by
  assessee and in terms of this Rule the said goods do, in fact,
  possess the essential character of 'Television Receivers' -
    Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff.

8      The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of various
  components of television sets, was issued a show-cause
  notice dated 31.3.1990 as to why the goods
  manufactured by it were not liable to be classified under
  sub-heading 8528.00 of the Tariff as 'Television Receivers'
C rather than under Entry 8529.00 as 'parts' of the same.
  Ultimately, the Collector (Appeals), and the Income Tax
  Appellate Tribunal accepted the case of the Revenue and
  held the goods manufactured by the assessee liable to
  be classified under Tariff Entry 8528 as 'Television
  Receivers' rather than under Tariff Entry 8529 as 'parts'
0 thereof.

          Dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the Court

          HELD: 1.1 As regards the applicability of the Rules
E for Interpretation vis-a-vis the Section Notes and Chapter
  Notes in the Tariff Schedule, resort must first be had only
  to the particular tariff entries, along with the relevant
  Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear picture
  emerges. It is only in the absence of such a picture
F emerging, that recourse can be made to the Rules for
  Interpretation. [para 19 and 20] (973-F; 974-C-D]

         Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Simplex
    Mills Co. Ltd. 2005 (2) SCR 441 = (2005) 3 SCC 51 - relied
    on.
G
          Commissioner of Customs Vs. MIS Sony India Ltd. 2008
    (13) SCR 873 = (2008) 13 SCC 145 - distinguished.

          Union of India vs. Tara Chand Gupta {1971) 1 SCC 486
    - cited.
H
     SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF          965
           CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

     1.2 In the matter at hand, the entire case of the       A
Revenue is based on an application of r. 2(a) of the Rules
for Interpretation of Tariff to the goods produced by the
appellant. However, the applicability of this Rule cannot
be established unless the classification is first tested
against the relevant Section and Chapter Notes. In this      B
case, the relevant Section Note is Section Note 2 to
Section XVI of the Tariff, which contains a clear
stipulation to the effect that 'parts' of goods mentioned
in the Chapters specified therein, shall in all cases be
classified in their respective heading. [para 21-22] [974-   c
D-E; 975-A, B]

    1.3 In view of the unique facts of the instant case, the
goods of the appellant may not be said to be 'parts' as
per Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff. The
appellant not only used to assemble all parts of the D
Television Receivers and make complete television sets,
but the said Television Receivers were also operated in
the manufacturing unit of the appellant and thoroughly
checked and only upon it being confirmed that the
Television Receivers were complete in all respects, they E
were disassembled and along with relevant material and
individual serial numbers, sent to the various satellite
units. Once the Television Receivers are assembled or
are made completely finished goods, the manufacturing
process is over. Whether they are sent to the satellite F
units of the appellant in its complete form or in a
disassembled form is irrelevant. [para 24] [975-F-H; 976-
A]
     Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Simplex      G
                                =
Mills Co. Ltd. 2005 (2) SCR 441 (2005) 3 sec 51 - relied
on.

     Commissioner of Customs Vs. MIS Sony India Ltd. 2008
(13) SCR 873 = (2008) 13 SCC 145 - distinguished.
                                                             H
    966    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 7 S.C.R.

A       1.4 It is seen from the material on record, that at the
  time of the parts of the TV set being transported from the
  factory of the appellant, the parts manufactured by it are
  already identified as distinct units. As it can be seen from
  the affidavit of the Revenue, which has not been
B controverted by the appellant, the parts manufactured by
  it are matched and numbered within the factory itself, and
  also assembled together to receive pictures for the
  purpose of testing and quality control. The consequence
  of this is that the goods assembled at the satellite units
C would be identifiably the same as those assembled
  together by the appellant in its factory for the purpose of
  testing, as all such parts are already numbered and
  matched. This element of identifiability shall take the
  goods manufactured by the appellant away from being
  classified as 'parts', and they will be classified as
0
  identifiable Television Receivers. The fact that the packing
  material for the products is also manufactured and
  transported by the appellant further lends credence to
  this conclusion. [para. 26) [976-C-F]

E      1.5 Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff being
  not applicable, there is no bar to the application of r.2 of
  the Rules for Interpretation to the goods transported by
  the appellant. The terminology of the Rule is wide enough
  to cover the goods transported by the appellant, and it
F cannot be said that the processes required to be carried
  out at the satellite units are so vital to the manufacture
  of the Television Receivers as to render the goods
  transported by the appellant lacking the 'essential
  character' of Television Receivers. Rule 2(a) of the Rules
G for Interpretation has been couched in wide terms, and
  in terms of this Rule, the goods produced by the
  appellant do in fact possess the essential character of
  Television Receivers. (para 29-30) [977-C-G)

      1.6 Looking to the facts of the case, it is not in
H dispute that the complete Television was manufactured
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF                   967
        CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

by the appellant and, therefore, the Revenue had rightly            A
classified the goods- product as complete Television set
even though it was subsequently disassembled. [para 25]
[976-A-B]

     1.7 As regards the plea of double-taxation, it is always
                                                                    8
open to the satellite units of the appellant to avail input
tax credit on the duty paid by the appellant on the goods
transported by them. [para 31] [977-G; 978-A]

    1.8 The Tribunal did not commit any error while
passing the impugned order. [para 32] [978-8]                       C

                      Case Law Reference:
    2008 (13) SCR 873             distinguished        para 11
    (1971) 1 sec 486              cited                para 12      D
    2005 (2) SCR 441              relied on            para 19

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4427 of 2003.
                                                                    E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2003 the
Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi in Appeal No. E/1553/02-B being final Order No. 244/
03-B.

    Dushyant Dave, Meenakshi Arora, Aniruddha Deshmukh,             F
Mohit D. Ram. P. Kataki, Vaishnavi Krishnamani for the
Appellant.

     P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Harish Chandra, Rachna Joshi lssar,
Arti Singh, B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.                   G

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    ·ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to an
order dated 1st April, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi (in short 'The   H
    968     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Tribunal') in E/APPEAL No. 1553/02-B whereby the Tribunal
  has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and
  upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner
  (Appeals).

B      2. The issue under consideration in this appeal is whether
  the goods manufactured by the appellant are liable to be taxed
  as 'Parts of Television Receivers' falling under Tariff Entry 8529
  of the Central Excise Tariff contained in the First Schedule to
  the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'the Tariff') or as
  'Television Receivers' under Tariff Entry 8528 of the Tariff, for
C the year 1989-90.

       3. The appellant is a manufacturer of various components
  of television sets. The components are manufactured at its
  factory at Delhi. Thereafter, the said components are
D assembled in the same factory for the purpose of testing of
  each component and for checking the working of each
  television set. Thereafter the television sets so assembled are
  disassembled and then transported as parts to various satellite
  units of the appellant company at different places. In these
E satellite units, the separate components are re-assembled and,
  as per the appellant, some further processes are carried out
  in order to make those sets marketable. The issue is whether
  such components, which are manufactured at and transported
  from the factory of the appellant at Delhi are liable to be
F assessed as 'Television Receivers' or as 'Parts of Television
  Receivers'.

       4. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice dated
  21.3.1990 by the Assistant Collector, New Delhi, whereby it
  was asked to show-cause as to why the goods manufactured
G by the appellant were not liable to be classified under sub-
  heading 8528.00 of the Tariff as 'Television Receivers', rather
  than under Entry 8529.00, as 'parts' of the same. The appellant
  replied to the show-cause notice that the goods/components
  as transported from its factory did not possess the essential
H characteristics of finished Television Receivers as required by
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF     969
 CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff (in short the   A
'Rules for Interpretation'), and also detailed the various further
processes required to be performed on those goods for thel;'tl
to be considered as complete Television Receivers. These
contentions of the appellant appear to have been accepted as
no further action was taken by the Revenue until the year 1993.         B

      5. Thereafter, the Collector of Central Excise, exercising
his power under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise and Salt
Act, 1944 vide order dated 18.02.1994 directed the Assistant-
Collector to file an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise        C
(Appeals) for setting aside the approval granted to the
classification of the goods of the appellant. The Collector
(Appeals) by order dated 21 /22.07.1994 dismissed the appeal
filed by the Department.

      6. Against the aforestated order, the Department preferred        D
an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated
18.02.2000 remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals), on
finding that the earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) was a
non-speaking order and violative of the principles of natural
justice. Consequently, the Collector (Appeals) in the remand            E
proceedings decided the issue in favour of the Department
vide order dated 26.06.2002. Against this, the appellant filed
an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the order impugned
herein was passed. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has
accepted the contentions of the Department and held the                 F
goods manufactured by the appellant liable to be classified
under Tariff Entry 8528 as 'Television Receivers' rather than
under Tariff Entry 8529 as 'parts' thereof.

      7. At the outset, recourse may be had to the respective
Tariff Entries during the relevant period:                              G

     "8528.00 - Television Receivers (including video monitors
     and video projectors), whether or not incorporating radio
     broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or
     reproducing apparatus.                                             H
    970       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         8529.00 - Parts suitable for use solely or principally with
          the apparatus of heading Nos. 85.25 to 85.28."

         8. Rules 1 & 2 of the Rules for the Interpretation of Excise
    Tariff framed under Section 2 of the Act read as under:
B         "1. The titles of Sections and Chapters are provided for
          ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification
          shall be determined according to the terms of the headings
          and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided
          such headings or Notes do not otherwise require,
c         according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

          2. (a) Any reference in a heading to goods shall be taken
          to include a reference to those goods incomplete or
          unfinished, provided that, the incomplete or unfinished
D         goods have the essential character of the complete or
          finished goods. It shall also be taken to include a reference
          to those goods complete or finished (or falling to be
          classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule),
          removed unassembled or disassembled."
E         9. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the appellant contended that the aforestated Rules of the
    Rules for Interpretation may not be taken recourse to in the
    instant case, as there exists a clear stipulation to the contrary
    in the Section Notes to Section XVI of the Tariff, where the
F   headings involved herein are located. Note 2 of the Section
    Notes to Section XVI is as follows:

          "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter
          84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not
G         being parts of the articles of heading No. 84.84, 85.44,
          85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to
          the following rules :

          a.   parts which are goods included in any of the
          headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than headings
H
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF     971
 CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

    84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their      A
    respective headings;"

     10. He further submitted that the classification of the goods
manufactured by the appellant was not correct. According to
him, as per the sound principle of classification and more
particularly as per the provisions of interpretative Rule 1, the     8
goods ought to have been classified under Tariff Entry 8529
because the appellant had manufactured only parts of Television
Receivers. He submitted that invocation of Rule 2(a) of the
Rules for Interpretation was not justified because looking to the
facts of the case, the provisions of Rule 1 of the Rules for         C
Interpretation would apply because of the specific head for
'parts of Television Receiver', being Tariff Head 8529.00.

      11. The learned senior counsel cited the decision of this
Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. MIS Sony India Ltd.             D
[(2008) 13  sec     145], wherein a case involving analogous
headings as those in this case in the Schedule to the Customs
Tariff Act, the goods imported by the assessee therein were
held to be 'parts of Television Receivers', and further
interpretative Rule 2(a) was held to be inapplicable to such         E
goods. He further contended that as the goods transported by
the appellant were substantially in the same position and
condition as those transported by the assessee in the above
case, the ratio in the said decision would be applicable to this
case also.
                                                                     F
     12. In the written submissions submitted on behalf of the
appellant, it was stated that keeping in mind the law laid down
by this Court in Union of India vs. Tara Chand Gupta [(1971)
1 sec   486], the goods manufactured by the appellant ought
to have been classified under Tariff Entry 8529.00 and an effort     G
was made to compare the facts of the said case with the
present one by submitting that in the case referred to
hereinabove, parts of scooter, in completely knocked down
condition, were treated as parts of the scooter and not scooter
~~                                                                   H
    972        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A        13. He further submitted that the Rule 1 of the Rules for
    Interpretation clearly denotes that the title of Sections and
    Chapters are provided for ease of reference only but for legal
    purposes, the classification should be determined according
    to the terms of the headings, and as the appellant had
8   manufactured only parts of Television Receivers, the Revenue
    ought not to have classified the goods manufactured by the
    appellant as 'Television Receivers' under a different head
    instead of as 'parts' of the same.

        14. In addition to these contentions, he also contended that
C if the goods manufactured by it are held to be Television
  Receivers covered by Tariff Entry 8528 mentioned above, it
  would lead to double-taxation as the satellite units, where such
  goods are finally assembled into Television Receivers, are in
  fact paying excise duty on the assembled goods under the
D above Tariff Entry 8528.

       15. On the other hand, on behalf of the revenue, Mr. P.P.
  Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General justified the
  judgment delivered by the Tribunal. He tried to narrate the facts
E which lead the Revenue to classify the goods manufactured by
  the appellant as complete television for the reasons, some of
  which are as follows:

          a.     The appellant was assembling manufactured parts
                 of TV sets and operating TV sets so as to check
F                whether the entire set was complete and operative
                 and then the TV sets were being disassembled;

          b.      The appellant was giving the same serial number
                 on the chassis as well as the sub assemblies of the
G                TV sets;

          c.     The matching of the said chassis and sub-
                 assemblies was done at the factory of the appellant
                 itself;

H
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 973
 CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

      d.    The packing material and literature were supplied        A
            by the appellant along with the disassembled parts .

            .... etc.

     16. He further contended that the goods produced and
temporarily assembled by the appellant, being essentially/           B
substantially complete Television Receivers in a disassembled
state, would necessarily have to be classified as such, owing
to Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation. It was a simple
contention of the Revenue that the appellant had chosen to
disassemble the television sets as parts before transporting         C
them in order to avail the lower duty payable on such parts.

      17. We have heard the learned counsel and considered
the facts of the case. We have also gone through the judgments
cited by the learned counsel and upon doing so, we are of the        D
view that the Tribunal did not commit any error while passing
the impugned order.

     18. The main question that arises for consideration in this
case is that of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 2(a) of the
Rules for Interpretation to the goods of the Appellant, and the      E
effect of Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff, reproduced
above, on the applicability of such provision.

      19. On the question of the applicability of the Rules for
Interpretation vis-a-vis the Section Notes and Chapter Notes         F
in the Tariff Schedule, the rule laid down by this Court in
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Simplex Mills
Co. Ltd. (2005) 3 sec 51 may be seen to be applicable in
this case. In that decision, a three judge bench had the following
to say on the subject:                                               G

     "The rules for the interpretation of the Schedule to the
     Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 have been framed pursuant
     to the powers under Section 2 of that Act. According to
     Rule 1 titles of Sections and Chapters in the Schedule are
     provided for ease of reference only. But for legal purposes,    H
    974       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         classification "shall be determined according to the terms
          of the headings and any relevant section or Chapter
          Notes". If neither the heading nor the notes suffice to clarify
          the scope of a heading, then it must be construed
          according to the other following provisions contained in the
B         Rules. Rule-I gives primacy to the Section and Chapter
          Notes along with terms of the headings. They should be
          first applied. If no clear picture emerges then only can one
          resort to the subsequent rules."

       20. Therefore, as clearly specified by the above rule, resort
C must first be had only to the particular tariff entries, along with
  the relevant Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear
  picture emerges. It is only in the absence of such a picture
  emerging, that recourse can be made to the Rules for
  Interpretation.
D
       21. In the matter at hand, the entire case of the Revenue
  is based on an application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for
  Interpretation to the goods produced by the appellant, however,
  the applicability of this Rule cannot be established unless the
E classification is first tested against the relevant Section and
  Chapter Notes. In this case, the relevant Section Note is
  Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff, as reproduced
  above. The same may be reproduced again here for the
  purpose of a closer examination:
F         "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter
          84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not
          being parts of the articles of heading 84.84, 85.44, 85.45,
          85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to the
          following rules :
G
          a.   parts which are goods included in any of the
          headings of Chapter 84 or 85 (other than headings 84.85
          and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their
          respective headings;
H
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF     975
 CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

    b.     ... " [Emphasis added]                                    A

     22. As can be seen from the above, the clear stipulation
contained in Section Note 2 is to the effect that 'parts' of goods
mentioned in the Chapters specified therein, shall in all cases
be classified in their respective heading. In that light, the        8
fundamental enquiry in this case must be that of whether the
goods produced by the appellant may be said to be covered
by the above Section Note.

     23. In view of the above mentioned Section Note, the
question that arises here is whether the goods produced by the C
appellant can be described as 'parts' under the goods included
in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85. In this respect, it is
the contention of the appellant that the goods produced by them
shall inevitably have to be considered as 'parts', as they are
unable to receive a picture, which is said to be a fundamental D
requirement for a good to be considered as a 'Television
Receiver'. At the first sight, one may find force in this contention.
As the test in Section Note 2 is simply that of whether the
goods in question are 'parts', it may be convincingly said that
as the goods transported by the appellant are incapable of E
functioning as 'Television Receivers', they shall have to be
considered to be 'parts' thereof.

     24. However, on closer scrutiny of the unique facts of this
case, it is our view, the goods of the appellant may not be said F
to be 'parts' as per Section Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff.
The appellant not only used to assemble all parts of the
Television Receivers and make complete television sets, but
the said Television Receivers were also operated in the
manufacturing unit of the appellant and thoroughly checked and
only upon it being confirmed that the Television Receivers were G
complete in all respects, they were disassembled and along with
relevant material and individual serial numbers, .sent to the
various satellite units. Once the Television Receivers are
assembled or are made completely finished goods, the
manufacturing process is over and we are not concerned as H
    976      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   to what happens subsequently. Whether they are sent to the
    satellite units of the appellant in its complete form or in a
    disassembled form is irrelevant.

         25. Looking to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that
    complete Television was manufactured by the appellant and
8
    therefore, in our opinion, the Revenue had rightly classified the
    goods- product as complete Television set even though it was
    subsequently disassembled.

          26. It is seen from the material on record, that at the time
C   of the parts of the TV set being transported from the factory of
    the appellant, the parts manufactured by it are already identified
    as distinct units. As it can be seen from the affidavit of the
    Revenue, which has not been controverted by the appellant, the
    parts manufactured by it are matched and numbered within the
D   factory itself, and also assembled together to receive pictures
    for the purpose of testing and quality control. The consequence
    of this is that the goods assembled at the satellite units would
    be identifiably the same as those assembled together by the
    appellant in its factory for the purpose of testing, as all such
E   parts are already numbered and matched. This element of
    identifiability shall take the goods manufactured by the appellant
    away from being classified as 'parts', and they will be classified
    as identifiable Television Receivers. The fact that the packing
    material for the products is also manufactured and transported
F   by the appellant further lends credence to this conclusion.

         27. The facts in the case of Sony India Ltd. (supra) may
    be distinguished in this respect. In that case, the assessee had
    imported different parts of television sets in 94 different
    consignments. The said parts were imported separately in bulk,
G   and thereafter, the process of matching, numbering and
    assembling was carried out once they were in the possession
    of the assessee. Therefore, it may be seen that what the
    assessee had imported in that case were merely various parts
    which could not yet be identified and distinguished as individual
H   Television Receivers such as the parts transported by the
  SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMMNR. OF     977
 CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

appellant in this case. The said decision is, therefore, A
distinguishable on facts.

     28. For further clarification, it may also be stated that if the
appellant had been in the practice of simply manufacturing and
transporting parts of Television Receivers in bulk, while leaving 8
the matching and numbering functions to be done at the satellite
units, then it could have availed the benefit of Section Note 2,
because in such a case, there would not have been any
production of identifiable television sets such as in the present
case.
                                                                   c
      29. Once the question of applicability of Section Note 2 to
Section XVI of the Tariff is answered in the above manner, i.e.
in the negative, there may be seen to be no bar to the
application of Rule 2 of the Rules for Interpretation to the goods
transported by the appellant. Consequently, the only question D
that remains is with respect to whether such goods shall fall foul
of the said Rule.

     30. In this regard, despite the attempts of the appellant to
establish otherwise, we are unable to see how the goods E
transported by them shall not be covered by the Rule, especially
as a complete or finished article, 'presented unas·sembled or
disassembled'. The terminology of the Rule is wide enough to
cover the goods transported by the appellant, and we are not
convinced that the processes required to be carried out at the
satellite units are so vital to the manufacture of the Television F
Receivers so as to render the goods transported by the
appellant lacking the 'essential character' of Television
Receivers. Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation has been
couched in wide terms, and in terms of this Rule, it is our view
that the goods produced by the appellant do in fact possess G
the essential character of Television Receivers.

     31. The appellant had also raised the plea of double-
taxation; however, in our view once the question of classification
of the goods transported by the appellant has been answered H
     978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A    in the above manner, it is not open to us to grant the appellant
     any relief on this ground alone. Further, it is always open to the
     satellite units of the appellant to avail input tax credit on the duty
     paid by the appellant on the goods transported by them.

          32. in view of the facts stated hereinabove, we are of the
13   view that the Tribunal did not commit any error while passing
     the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with
     no order as to costs.

     R.P.                                            Appeal dismissed.