Page 250 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

688 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

The Registration Number should invariably be referred to in your
future correspondence.
10. From the above it can be seen that the registration number has two
parts. One, the 8-digit number and also I.S. No. R- 41036226 is 8-digit number,
with regard to the driver imported by the appellant which is under dispute. The
second part, which is the I.S. no. gives the description of the product type num-
ber. In case of driver, the product type number i.e., IS No. 15885 is “PART 2/SEC
13” - 2012. On the drivers instead of embossing the said Indian Standard number,
the Indian Standard number of LED lights happened to be embossed. The Indian
Standard number of LED lights is IS 10322 “PART 5/SEC 2” - 2012. The Commis-
sioner (Appeals) in para 5 has noted that the second part of the BIS number em-
bossed on the driver does not tally. It is observed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
that “PART 5/SEC 2” tallies with the standards for the lamps.
11. The appellant has produced letter dated 27-12-2018 issued by M/s.
Newsen Electronics Ltd. In the said letter they have stated that it was erroneous-
ly printed on the drivers as IS 15885 “PART 5/SEC-2”. The relevant portion of
the letter is reproduced as under :-
“With reference to the above invoice, we wish to bring to your kind notice
that with regard to Item No. 2 LED panel light supplied the actual BIS No.
is
BIS No. R-41094455 IS 10322 (Part 5/Sec 2) 2012
BIS No. R-41036226 IS 15885 (Part 2/Sec 13) 2012
Whereas on the driver it was erroneously printed as R-41036226 IS 15885
(part 5/Sec 2) instead of BIS No. R-41036226 IS 15885 (Part 2/Sec 13) 2012;
We will ensure that the above deficiency will not happen in future and en-
closed herewith the corrected details to be affixed on the subject items.”
From the said letter, it can be understood that the manufacturers has owned the
responsibility for the difference in embossing the number on the drivers.
12. The Learned Authorised Representative has countered the said let-
ter stating that it has not been produced before the authorities below and also
that it is issued to the appellant by M/s. Newsen Electronics Ltd., whereas, the
appellant had imported the goods from M/s. World Light Industries Ltd., Hong
Kong. The letter is issued by the manufacturer of the goods. M/s. Newsen Elec-
tronics Ltd., is the foreign manufacturer of the said drivers and the BIS certificate
is obtained by the Indian representative of the said company. M/s. World Light
Industries Ltd., is only a supplier from whom the appellant has procured the
goods. It is the manufacturer only who has to give clarification as to the differ-
ence in the BIS numbers embossed on the driver. Therefore, the appellants have
produced the letter from the manufacturer. It can be understood that the suppli-
er/dealer in the foreign country i.e., M/s. World Light Industries Ltd., will not
be able to explain with regard to the difference in BIS numbers. This argument of
the Learned Authorised Representative that the letter is clarification issued by
the manufacturer and not by the supplier of the goods is of no substance or rele-
vance.
13. On perusal of the facts as brought out from the records, it is seen
that the Indian Standard number only has been embossed erroneously on the
driver. The I.S. No. of the LED panel has been embossed on the driver. It is not
the case that the I.S. No. of entirely different product is endorsed. Driver is part

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  250