1997(12)LCX0125

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

COLORSCANS PVT. LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Final Order Nos. C/82-83/98-B2, dated 17-12-1997 in Appeal Nos. C/3129/90-B2 & C/706/91-B2

Cases Quoted

United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1988(10)LCX0049 Eq 1988 (038) ELT 0568 (S.C.) — Referred       [Para 4]

Collector v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. — 1996(08)LCX0029 Eq 1996 (087) ELT 0715 (Tribunal) — Referred          [Paras 4, 7]

Metal Box Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. — W.P. No. 439 of 1981, decided by Bom. H.C. on 31-7-1987 — Followed                                                                     [Para 5]

Scan Electronics v. Collector — 1988(02)LCX0084 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0690 (Tribunal) — Followed                   [Paras 5, 8]

Advocated By : Shri R. Subramanian, Consultant, for the Appellants.

Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Colorscans Pvt. Ltd. and the other by M/s. Convey Printers Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. As the issue for our consideration is common in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. We have heard Shri R. Subramanian, Consultant who appeared for both the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the respondent.

3. Shri R. Subramanian, ld. Consultant agreed that the goods imported which had been described in the Bill of Entries as “Chromograph DC-380 Colour Scanner with exposing unit ER and Standard Accessories” was a machine for uses ancillary to printing. It was correctly classifiable both for Customs and Central Excise purposes under Chapter Heading No. 84.43. They had filed a Miscellaneous Application pleading that the goods imported were correctly classifiable u/s.h. No. 8443.60 for Customs purposes and under Chapter sub-heading No. 8443.00 for Central Excise purpose. It was his submission that in the interest of justice, the goods be ordered to be classified u/s.h. 8443.60 for Customs purposes and u/s.h. No. 8443.00 for Central Excise purposes. When the goods are classified for Central Excise purposes u/s.h. No. 8443.00, they would be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. which exempts the machine for uses in ancillary to printing from payment of additional duty of customs.

4. In reply, Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR submitted that before the Adjudicating Authorities and the Appellate Authorities the appellants had already agreed that the goods imported were correctly classifiable u/s.h. 9006.10 for Customs purposes and u/s.h. 9006.00 for Central Excise purposes. He also submitted that the goods could not be considered as machines for uses ancillary to printing. He referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs - 1988(10)LCX0049 Eq 1988 (038) ELT 0568 (S.C.) where the Apex Court had held that the colour scanners cinematograph C-299 as per catalogue was not ancillary to printing. He also referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1240 whereunder notes Section XVI where the scope of Heading No. 84.43 as to include, the machines for uses ancillary to printing had been explained and this matter has also been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Bombay v. Larsen and Toubro - 1996(08)LCX0029 Eq 1996 (087) ELT 0715 (Tribunal).

5. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods imported were described as chromograph DC-380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories. The appellants had submitted before the adjudicating authority that they agreed, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Box Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. in Writ Petition No. 439 of 1981 judgment (Single Judge) delivered on 31-7-1987 and the Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision in the case of Scan Electronics v. C.C., Bombay - 1988(02)LCX0084 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0690 (Tribunal) = 1988 (016) ECR 0300 (Tribunal) that the goods imported by them were correctly classifiable u/h No. 90.09 of the Customs Tariff.

6. Learned Consultant had argued that the goods imported were the machines for uses ancillary to printing. We consider that the goods imported could not be considered as machines for uses ancillary to printing as admittedly they are used for the preparation of the plates and in a process before the printing operation. As explained in the HSN Explanatory Note at page 1240 under Heading 84.43, the group of the machines for uses ancillary to printing are those machines which are for uses ancillary to printing exclusively designed to operate with printing machines and used during or after the printing operation for feeding, handling or further working the sheets or rolls of paper. The goods imported had no such function. By way of illustration, the stock or pile elevators, automatic feeders, sheet delivery mechanisms, folders, gummers, performators and staplers, serial numbering machines, bronzing machines for the printing industry have been mentioned. The goods imported in no way are akin to the machines illustrated in the HSN Explanatory Note.

7. In the case of C.C., Bombay v. L & T Ltd. - 1996(08)LCX0029 Eq 1996 (087) ELT 0715 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had observed that the imported machinery which had been connected to the main dyes shaft for the printing lines and uses along with printing machines could be considered as a machine ancillary to printing. In their written submissions dated 4-10-1989, the Managing Director of Color Scan Pvt. Ltd. had submitted that the colour scanners imported by them were for photographic processing apparatus which were functionally similar to processing cameras and they are known as colour scanner for processing required for printing industry. The goods imported are in no way connected to the printing mechanism and were not used along with the printing machine for the purpose of classification under Heading No. 8443.60 of the Customs Tariff. In fact in the appeals the main dispute was only about the leviability of the countervailing duty.

We consider that for countervailing duty purpose also the goods in question were correctly classifiable u/s.h. 9006.00. We have also gone into the uses of the goods imported and their relationship with the printing activity. We consider that the goods imported were not machines ancillary to printing. Under sub-heading 9006.00, the following goods are covered :

“Photographic (other than cinematographic cameras; photographic flashlight apparatus and flash bulbs other than discharge lamps of Heading No. 85.39.”

The corresponding entry in the Customs Tariff insofar as Heading No. 90.06 is concerned is similar. It has been further sub-divided into various sub-headings and sub-heading 9006.10 covers `cameras of a kind used for preparing printing plates or cylinders.’ Thus for Tariff purpose, cameras of a kind used for preparing printing plates or cylinders were photographic cameras. As the goods im- ported admittedly work on the photographic principles and as all types of ca- meras including those for preparing printing plates were covered by Heading No. 90.06 of both the Customs and Excise Tariff. We do not agree with the view of the appellants that the colour scanners for uses in the printing industry were not classifiable u/h No. 90.06 of the Customs as well as Central Excise Tariff.

8. The appellants have contended that the applicable exemption notification in their case was 59/87-Cus. which provided exemption from the additional duty of customs to the goods covered by all the sub-headings except sub-heading No. 8443.90 of Heading No. 84.43. As we have discussed above the goods imported were not the machines for uses ancillary to printing. Further the goods falling under Heading No. 90.06 were not covered by the exemption Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The authorities below had referred to the Bombay High Court decision and the Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision as reported in 1988(02)LCX0084 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0690 (Tribunal) = 1988 (016) ECR 0300 (Tribunal) where it had been held that the colour scanners were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 9006.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. He had also discussed the contention of the appellants that colour scanners were not photographic cameras. He had referred to the Explanatory Notes under HSN and had held that the colour scanners were covered under the description of the photographic cameras. We have already referred to the various sub- headings. Under Heading 90.06 of the Customs Tariff, we find that entry in regard to photographic cameras was wide to cover the cameras of a kind used for preparing printing plates.

9. Under Notification No. 71/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended), the photographic cameras are described in sub-serial No. (1) of Serial No. 3 of the Table annexed to that notification. The sub-serial (ii) covers the goods other than photographic cameras and flash bulbs. Heading No. 90.06 covers photographic (other than cinematographic cameras; photographic flashlight apparatus and flash bulbs other than discharge lamps of Heading No. 85.39. The appellants had argued that the colour scanners should be covered by sub-serial (ii) of Serial No. 3 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 71/86-C.E. We consider that under the description goods other than photographic cameras and flash bulbs, only the photographic flashlight apparatus could be covered. The photographic cameras which include the cameras for printing plates were specifically described in sub-serial (i) of Serial No. 3 of the Table aforesaid and thus the rate applicable to photographic cameras will be the rate as applicable to the goods imported.

10. Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Collector, Customs (Appeals) in both the cases.

In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are rejected.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (100) ELT 255 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1998 (025) RLT 0361