Page 262 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

700 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

NETWORK VIDEO RECORDER-(CCTV SYSTEM EQUIPMENTS)”. The appel-
lant has also placed on record the Bills of Entry of the other importer viz. M/s.
Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. at pages 39 to 46 of the Appeal Memo-
randum and the descriptions of the goods are “AJ (CCTV CAMERA) (WIRED)”,
“AJ (DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDER) (VIDEO DUPLICATING SYSTEM WITH
MASTER AND SLAVE CONTROL)” and “AJ (DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDER)
(NETWORK DUPLICATING SYSTEM WITH MASTER AND SLAVE
CONTROL)”.
6.2 A close look at the above Bills of Entry reveals that there are differ-
ences as regards the descriptions of the imported goods are concerned. In any
case, there is no dispute that the appellant itself had classified under CTH 8525
80 90 in its Bill of Entry under dispute and thereby effectively prevented the Rev-
enue from questioning further.
7. From the HSN Note read with the Customs Tariff Heading 8525, we
find that there is no entry specifically for CCTV cameras and it is nowhere even
hinted that CCTV cameras, which according to the appellant are neither digital
cameras nor video camera recorders, would fall under the category of television
cameras itself and hence, this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. For
these reasons, they cannot be classified under television camera, but rightly un-
der “Others” for the period in dispute, since we cannot add or substitute our
views/opinions, to negate Revenue’s classification, just to go with appellant’s
claim which is based only on arguments.
8. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the appeal and hence the same
is rejected.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 6-2-2020)
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 700 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. I]
Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (T)
COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., JAIPUR-I
Versus
RAJASTHAN EXPLOSIVES & CHEMICALS LTD.
Final Order No. A/50145/2020-EX(DB), dated 24-1-2020 in Appeal
No. E/50248/2019-DB
Recovery of tax - Sick Company - Department contesting adjustment
of refund amount against confirmed demands - HELD : Dues pertaining to or-
ders confirming demands, not disclosed by Department or earlier management
to BIFR and same not considered in scheme sanctioned by BIFR - BIFR also by
order dated 22-5-2020 protected management from recovery of dues, not dis-
closed by old management or not provided for in package approved by BIFR -
Proceedings before BIFR not assailed before any appellate forum - Therefore,
no error in impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 11 of
Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 8, 9, 10]
Appeal dismissed

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  262