2000(11)LCX0312
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) and P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
Final Order No. 1877/2000-B, dated 8-11-2000 in Appeal No. C/806/85-B
CASE CITED
Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector — 2000(09)LCX0286 Eq 2000 (121) ELT 0495 (Tribunal - LB) — Followed [Paras 1, 3, 4]
Advocated By : Shri M.P. Singh, JDR, for the Appellant.
None, for the Respondents.
[Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - We note that the hearing of this appeal stood adjourned from time to time, awaiting decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in appeal No. C/372/87-B (Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Mumbai). Ld. JDR, Shri M.P. Singh has submitted that the issue involved in the instant case is identical with that involved in the case of Light Publications Ltd. and that the decision in the latter case has since become available. He has further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the said decision of the Larger Bench, reported in 2000 (121) ELT 495.
2. The notice of hearing issued to the respondents in the present appeal is seen to have been returned undelivered. The notice was sent to the party in the same address as they had furnished to the lower authorities. No change of address is seen to have been given by the respondents either. In the circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal after hearing ld. JDR.
3. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the goods namely ‘Nylo print plate processing equipment’ imported by the respondents was classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84.34 or under CTH 90.10. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the equipment was correctly classifiable under CTH 90.10 since it worked on photographic principle. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), however, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector after finding that the equipment covered relief printing by using relief photo-engraved plates. The lower appellate authority did not record any specific finding on the classifiability of the equipment, nor did it reverse the finding of the Assistant Collector to the effect that the equipment worked on photographic principle. The case of the Revenue in the present appeal is that the equipment worked on the photographic principle and therefore was appropriately classifiable as photographic equipment under CTH 90.10. Ld. JDR has reiterated this case and pleaded for allowing the appeal by following the decision of the Larger Bench in Light Publications Ltd. (supra).
4. In Light Publications (supra), the Larger Bench held that in a classification dispute viz. CTH 84.34 v. CTH 90.10, the appropriate classification of the equipment would be under the latter heading if it worked on the photographic principle. In the instant case, it was the definite finding of the adjudicating authority that the imported equipment worked on photographic principle. This finding was not reversed by the lower appellate authority. The case of the Revenue that the equipment involved photographic principle has gone uncontested also. In the circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the finding of the adjudicating authority and set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and hold that the imported equipment was appropriately classifiable under CTH 90.10, following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in Light Publications Ltd. (supra).
5. The appeal of the Revenue stands allowed.