Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4.Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cc/Sea Port, Chennia on 11 July, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066.
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Customs Appeal Nos.374-75/05
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C3/847-848/O/2004-SEA dt.31.1.05 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. S.S.KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
Honble Mr. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER TECHNICAL
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 would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4.Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities:
M/s. Lexmark International(India) Ltd. Appellant
Versus
CC/Sea Port, Chennia Respondent
Appearance Shri Ravi Raghvan, Adv. for appellant Sh. A.K.Madan, Authorised Departmental Representative(DR) For respondent Coram: Honble Mr. S.S.KANG, VICE PRESIDENT Honble Mr. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER TECHNICAL Date of decision: 11.7.08 Order No.__________________ Per Rakesh Kumar:
The point of dispute in these two appeals is whether the Ink Cartridges with Print head assembly, imported by the Appellant are classifiable as parts and accessory of the machines of heading 84.71 under sub-heading 84733050 and hence eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/02-Cus dt.1.3.02(S.No.276A), as claimed by the Appellant or these goods are classifiable as Parts of Machines & mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included in this Chapter under sub-heading 84798999, as claimed by the Revenue. The Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) by the impugned order classified the goods under sub-heading 84798999 of the tariff.
2. Heard both the sides.
2.1 Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, pleaded that though the goods imported are meant for multi-functional printer, the multifunctional printers are classifiable under heading 84.71, that printing is the main function of the multifunction machines for which the imported goods are meant, that in terms of chapter note 5 to chapter 84, the printer for which the imported Ink cartridges with print head assembly, are meant are classifiable under heading 84.71 and therefore, the goods, in question, being parts of such printers, would be classifiable under 84.73 and that as per the Tribunals judgment in the case of Gestetner(India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2006(197)ELT.498, multifunction laser printer is correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60 not under sub-heading 8472.90. He also pleaded that the imported ink cartridges with print head assembly are usable with conventional as well as multifunctional printers and as, there is no dispute about the classification of conventional printers under heading 84.71, the ink cartridges for such printers would be correctly classifiable under heading 84.73 and that the Revenue has wrongly proceeded on the basis that the goods, in question, are usable with multifunctional machines only.
2.2. Shri A.K.Madan, the learned Departmental Representative made the following submissions:
(1) The goods imported are meant for multifunctional printer i.e. a printer with scanning, photocopy and fax capabilities and as per technical literature of such multifunction printer, such printer can function as stande alone fax or stand alone photocopier without a PC. Therefore, such multifunctional printer is a machine of heading 84.79 and the goods imported being its part would be classifiable under 84.79.
(2) As per Tribunals judgment in the case of Xerox Modicorp. Ltd. vs CC, Mumbai reported in 2003(151)ELT.186, photocopier-cum-printer Xerox Regal 5799, which is a multifunction machine performing the functions of printer, scanner and digital copier, is correctly classifiable under 8479.89. Therefore, the goods imported being part of such multifunction machine, are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 84798999.
3. We have given careful consideration for the submissions from both the sides. The goods imported are ink cartridges with print head assembly part No.10N0217A; 10No227A, 17G0050A, 12A1970A, 12A1980A and 13400HCA for inkjet and multifunction printers. The classification of these ink cartridges depends upon the classification of the machines for which the same are meant if, these cartridges are meant for the printers of heading 84.71, the same would be classifiable under heading 84.73 and if the machines for which these cartridges are meant are classifiable under heading 84.79, the same would be classifiable under 84.79.
3.1 For the reasons given below, we hold that the goods, in question, are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 84733050, (1) The Appellants contention from the very beginning has been that while cartridge No.10No217A, 10No227A & 12A1970A can be used with conventional as well as Multifunctional printers, the ink cartridge No.17G0050A, 12A1980A and 13400HCA can be used only with conventional printers. Thus all the imported cartridges can be used with conventional printers of heading 84.71 and therefore, the same would be correctly classifiable under heading 84.73(SH 84733050). Just because some type of ink cartridges are also usable with Multifunctional printers, the same will not cease to be the parts of the conventional printers.
(2) Tribunal in the case of Gestetner(India) Ltd.(supra) has held that Multifunction digital printers i.e. Digital laser printer with high speed resolution and digital document scanner is correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60. This order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court vide judgment dt.9.10.06 reported in 2006(204)ELT.A44(SC).
4. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appeals are allowed.
(S.S.Kang) Vice President (Rakesh Kumar) Member Technical Km