Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Shree Nidhi Secure Print Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, Chennai on 20 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/348/2004
(Arising out of Order in Appeal C.Cus.No. 358/04 dated 31.05.04, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai.)
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________________________
M/s. Shree Nidhi Secure Print Pvt. Ltd. : Appellants
Vs.
CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri Alwan, Adv., for the appellants Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 20.10.2010 Date of decision : 20.10.2010 ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The appellants have imported the impugned Nipson 8000/200/SED Graphic Printer and the dispute in this case is whether the said goods are classifiable under sub-Heading 8471.60 as claimed by the appellants or under 8479.89 as held by both the authorities below.
2. The original authority has described the goods as follows:-
The imported Machine is Nipson 8000 high quality Black & White Production Press. It uses a unique non-impact printing technology called magnetography to produce the printed output. The magnetography print engine consists of an array of tiny electromagnets the print head- arranged across and above a hard metal cylinder-the drum. By selectively energizing the print head elements, a magnetic image is formed on the surface of the drum. As the drum turns, the surface is exposed to an advanced polyester-based mono-component dry toner, which is attracted to the magnetized areas, thus developing the image. The drum continues to turn and the image is transferred to the substrate, where it is then fused using Nipsons cold flash-fusing technique. As the drum continues its revolution, it is cleaned and prepared to receive the next image. As magnetic forces are instant, and because of the high-speed data management and precision engineering, this process can occur continuously and at high speed, resulting in very fast print speeds.
Typical applications include on-demand printing of books, manuals, and pamphlets, invoices and financial statement, and production of direct marketing materials on paper, labels, coated stockseven plastic cards and foils. The Nipson 8000 is also ideal for producing identification products, such as labels and tags with bar codes or variable numbers.
As per the illustration given in the catalogue, the printer is connectable to an Automatic Data Processing Machine and works in conjunction with it. Further this machine has also in itself an in-built computer system for controlling and operating the above machine.
The physical dimension of the goods are as follows:
Width = 54.8 inches, Length = 85.8 inches, Height = 63 inches.
The machine weighs 1,000 kgs The value of the goods is Rs. 63,68,767.10
3. The classification of the impugned goods as a printing machine under Heading 8443 has been ruled out by the appellants as well as by the department. The original authority has referred to Chapter Note 5 (E) and Chapter Note 5 (B), which rule out classification of machines, performing a specific function other than data processing, and incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine, under Heading 84.71, as such machines are required to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings. In view of such provision and Chapter Note 5 (B) being subject to Chapter Note 5 (E), the authorities below have held that the impugned goods cannot be classified either as an ADP machine or as a part of an ADP machine.
4. Shri Alwan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the impugned machine has an in-built computer system and hence, he contends that it should be classified as an ADP machine under Heading 84.71. Such contention by the Ld. Advocate does not appear to be acceptable. The machine under import does not work as an ADP machine carrying out the function of data processing but merely incorporates an in-built system for controlling and operating the machine itself. It infact works being connected to a separate ADP machine and in conjunction with the ADP machine as per the concurrent findings of both the authorities below. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot either be classified as an ADP machine or as a part thereof, in view of Chapter Notes 5 (E) and 5 (B). Consequently, the impugned goods require to be classified under the residual heading 84.79, there being no other separate appropriate heading available to cover the same.
5. We thus find that the authorities below have examined the issue of classification of the impugned goods in detail, with reference to the technical literature available, and the applicable Chapter Notes. The classification of the impugned goods ordered under residual sub-heading 8479.89, therefore, does not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
2