2000(10)LCX0288
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) and P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
SRI KALISWARI FIREWORKS P. LTD.
Final Order No. 1816/2000-B, dated 27-10-2000 in Appeal No. C/1105/89-B
CASE CITED
Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector — 2000(09)LCX0286 Eq 2000 (121) ELT 0495 (Tribunal-LB)— Relied on [Paras 3, 5]
Advocated By: Shri K.K.Goel, SDR, for the Appellant.
Shri M.P. Dev Nath, Advocate, for the Respondents.
[Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. – We have carefully examined the records and heard both sides.
2. The short question before us is whether the respondents’ imported machine viz. “Automatic Graphic Plate Processor” was to be classified under CTH 90.10 or not. The Assistant Collector of Customs classified the goods under CTH 90.10. But the Collector (Appeals) held that it was classifiable as printing equipment under CTH 84.34. The present appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of the Collector (Appeals).
3. It is submitted by ld. SDR that an identical issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (121) ELT 495]. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has, fairly, conceded.
4. The main ground of the Revenue’s appeal is that the machine in question worked on the photographic principle and was, therefore, appropriately classifiable under CTH 90.10. There is no rebuttal of this contention before us.
5. In Light Publications (Supra), the Larger Bench held that, if the photographic principle was employed in the working of the machine, the article would fall under CTH 90.10. We find that this ratio is squarely applicable to the instant case. Therefore, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of ld. Collector (Appeals).
Equivalent 2001 (127) ELT 177 (Tri. - Del.)