Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Office Photostat Printers on 27 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(32)ECC244, 1991ECR230(TRI.-DELHI), 1991(54)ELT142(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)
1. The Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Order No. S/49-207/83R dated 21-11-1983 on the ground that the 'Automatic Film Processor' is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-01-1977.
2. In their grounds of appeal, they have stated as follows :-
"The imported Multiline 45 Processor (Automatic film/paper processor) is required in the printing industry, where "phototype setting" method is used for printing. Here, the matter to be printed is set photographically on a type setting machine and is exposed on to a film. The film is then processed in the above type of processor and then the matter in the film is exposed on to a photopaper which after exposure is processed by the same processor to make the matter visible before it is further used. The processor is thus used for film and paper alternatively. This is an essential requirement of a film/paper processor for use in phototype setting method. Therefore, processing of paper besides film is not a composite (or complementary) function, as far as this processor is concerned. In printing industry, three types of processors are generally used (1) Film processor, (2) Film/paper processor and (3) Plate processor. The first one is meant for processing exclusively film only. This processor is used, where offset printing or block making is done wherein no photopaper is used. The second item is used where phototype setting method is employed where film and paper will be processed alternatively. A mere film processor is of no use for photo-type setting purposes. The third item is used for the purposes of light sensitized photoplates. These three processors are different from one another as far as their use is concerned. The requirement of one of these processors for a particular field depends upon the need and no single processor will meet the requirement of all the methods of printing. It may also be pointed out that the three processors mentioned above are indicated separately in the current import policy vide S. No. 12(1) and 12(4) of Appx. 2.
In view of the above, the imported item being a film/paper processor, is not covered by Customs Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-01-1977 which covers only Automatic Film Processor used in offset printing method and not film/paper processor used in phototype setting method of printing."
3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) has held that the issue of applicability of the Notification No. 11/77 has been decided by the CEGAT in the case of Andhra Patrika, Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1103 (Tri.), where CEGAT has held that Notification No. 11/77 covers the processor also which can work both on paper and film. The item imported as seen from the order of the Assistant Collr. is Film Processor for use in printing industry and from the catalogue it was observed that the item is a Film Processor as well as paper processor and since the Notification No. 11/77 is applicable only for automatic Film Processor and not for automatic film/paper processor, it was held that the Notification was not applicable. During the course of the argument, Shri Surendra Kumar, Accountant, filed written submissions reiterating the order of the Collector (Appeals) and also has cited the recent decision of the Tribunal consisting of the same Bench in Order No. 174/90-B1 (Collr. of Customs v. Blitz Printing and Allied Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), and hence the ratio is squarely applicable. Shri M.K. Sohal, Ld. JDR, stated that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal. He, however, reiterated the grounds of appeal set-forth in the appeal filed by the Collector (Customs).
4. We have gone through the facis and circumstances of the case. Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-01-1977 reads as follows :-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts automatic film processor, falling under Heading No. 90.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, as is in excess of 40% ad valorem."
The Notification is applicable for the automatic Film Processor for use in printing industry. The Respondents have imported the machine which performs both as a Film Processor as well as paper processor. In an identical case referred to by the Respondent in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Blitz Printing and Allied Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., issued in order No. 174/90-B1, the Tribunal made the following observations, to quote :-
"We have heard Shri Sohal. We have perused the catalogue as well as the Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-1-1977. The notification extends benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 40% ad valorem to automatic film processor. It is not that the automatic film processor in the present matter can perform functions, viz., processing of film as well as sensitized paper. The Assistant Collector had observed in his order that the machine imported is for printing industry and, therefore, the proviso is satisfied. The respondents satisfy the condition laid down in the proviso to the Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15th Jan., 1977. It is a settled law that the notification should not be interpreted in a manner so that the notification may not become redundant. The respondents' case is covered by the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. v. Collr. of Customs, Madras vide Order No. 238/89-B2, dated 8th August, 1989. In that matter the notification was 49/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978, but the ratio fully applies to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal had followed an earlier judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Living Media India Ltd. in appeal No. 2552/83-B2 where the Tribunal had held that merely because the machinery could perform other functions."
Since the identical machine has been held to be covered by the exemption notification, the ratio is squarely applicable and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.