Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Patwa Photo Studio vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 21 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. C/87426/2013-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 206/MCH/ADC/AGR.VA/2013 dated 13/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K.Jain, 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 should 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 Departmental :
authorities?
=============================================================
Patwa Photo Studio
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Advocate for Appellant
Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 21/11/2013
Date of decision : 21/11/2013
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant made import of Used and Reconditioned Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor with Standard Accessories and claiming classification under Chapter Heading 84 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods in question on the ground that goods are Hazardous Waste and also imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed.
3. The contention of the appellant is that the goods in question cannot be considered as Hazardous Waste. The appellant relied upon the provisions of Hazardous Wastes (Management Handling And Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The contention is that as per the Rules Hazardous Waste is waste electrical and electronic assemblies scrap (including printed circuit boards)etc.but appellant had not made import of scrap. The appellant had imported a Digital Minilab Frontier 340 which is used for developing photographic films and for printing the photographs. The appellant relied upon the product literature. The contention is also that the goods in question is a apparatus and equipment for automatically developing photographic film or paper in rolls is classifiable under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff.
4. Revenue relied upon the finding of the lower authority and submitted that initially appellant claim the classification under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. M/s. Spolight Photo Studio another importer has imported similar goods and also obtained necessary permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, while, in the present case the appellant had not produced said permission. Therefore the impugned order is rightly passed.
5. We find that the goods were confiscated on the ground that the same are Hazardous Waste. We have gone through the Hazardous Wastes of (Management, Handling And Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. These Rules covers waste electrical or electronic assemblies scrap. In the present case, the goods in question are not waste and scrap of electrical or electronic assemblies. The goods in question is Used and Reconditioned Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor with Standard Accessories. The same is used for developing photo films as well as digital printing as per the catalogue on record therefore the impugned order whereby it has been held that the goods in question is a Hazardous Waste is not sustainable.
6. In respect of the classification of the goods, we find that as per the catalogue the machine in question is capable of developing films and thereafter printing the photographs as per the catalogue. The machines in question is capable of developing photo films and also capable of digital printing service and digital data processing service and same manner as the film process operation. The Revenue wants to classify the same under chapter 84 of the Tariff which covers automatic data processing machine and units thereof. The appellant before the adjudicating authority also claim the classification under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff which covers the apparatus and equipment for photographic film. Therefore the goods are classifiable under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff. In view of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
4