2007(04)LCX0064

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)

K.V.P. Graphics

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Final Order No. 407/07 decided on 16.04.2007 in Appeal No. C/451 /2000

Advocated By -

None for the Appellant
B.L. Meena, SDR for the Respondent

ORDER

P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)


1. The Appellants had imported a scanner and a processor and filed Bill of Entry dated 11th August 1997, for clearance of the goods, claiming classification of the goods under SH 8443.60 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The Assessing Authority classified the goods under SH 9010.49. The Assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reassessment of the goods under SH 8442.30 and for refund of the Excise Duty paid by them as applicable to SH 9010.49. The Appellate Authority found that the items imported by the Assessee did not conform to any of the functions indicated under Heading 84.42, such as type-founding, type-setting, preparation of printing blocks, plates etc. and that photographic principle was employed in the use of the scanner. The, authority took the view that the imported goods were specifically meant for photographic laboratories and accordingly, held the same to be classifiable appropriately under SH 9010.50.


2. In the present appeal filed against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is submitted that the scanner and processor imported by the Appellants were specially designed for use in printing industry and were not designed for photographic or cinematographic industries. This claim of the Appellants is not supported by any evidence. Had they produced the manufacturer's catalogue literature on the machines, it would have been possible for us to examine the veracity of the above claim. It is submitted by the Appellants that Heading 84.42 is more specific for the subject goods, which are claimed to have been used exclusively in printing industry. It is submitted that Heading 90.10 is a generic Heading and further that the machines were not used in photographic or cinematographic laboratories and were used in printing industry. This claim as to use of the imported items has not been substantiated.


3. The impugned order has brought out the operational aspects of the scanner and processor as pleaded by the Assessee them selves in their appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) vide para 2 of the impugned 'Order.

Nothing contained in the said para 2 of the impugned order has been controverted by the Appellants. The said para reads as under:"

In the appeal, the Appellant contends that the consignment they have imported consists of scanner and processor. Colour scanner is a machine that captures the different hues of an artwork when the same is scanned, segregates them as the combination of four print colours and outputs them on films. These films when processed and transferred to the printing plate will facilitate a colorful end product. The pictures that are exposed on film are brought to view with the developing in the processor. They submit that these are specifically designed for use in the printing industry and are not designed for use in photographic or cinematographic industries and hence, classifiable under CTH 8442.30. As such, the order of the lower authority may be set-aside with consequential relief to them. Heading 84.42 covers machinery, apparatus and equipment (other than the Machine-tools Heading Nos. 84.56 - 84.65), for type-founding or type-setting, for preparing or making printing blocks, plates, cylinders or other printing components; Printing type, blocks, plates, cylinders and other printing components; Blocks, plates, cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes (for example, planed, grained or polished). On the other hand, Heading 90.10 covers apparatus and equipment for photographic (including cinematographic) laboratories not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90. It appears from the nature of operations of the goods narrated by the Assessee themselves that the imported equipments were meant for photographic laboratories rather than for use in printing industry. The Appellant's claim to the contra has not been substantiated by them.


4. Today, there is no representation for the Appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We have heard learned SDR.


5. For the reasons already recorded, we sustain the impugned Order and dismiss this appeal.

Equivalent 2007 (118) ECC 0395

Equivalent 2007 (144) ECR 0395 (Tri.-Chennai)

Equivalent 2007 (213) ELT 0540 (Tri.- Chennai)

Equivalent 2007 (081) RLT 0096 (CESTAT-Che.)