Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

O. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not setting aside the levy of penalty to the tune of Rs.42,033/- and instead confirming the remand order of the lower authority in this regard?"

2.1. The brief facts of the case are as under: The assessment in the above cases relates to the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The assessee is a dealer in computer peripherals, image runner, fax machines, toner, photocopier machine and its spares and consumables, etc. 2.2. For the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed that the Image Runners (Multifunction network printers) would fall under Schedule I, Part B Entry 18(i) at 4%. The relevant entry is referred to hereunder:

"6.3 A MFP (Multi Function Product/Printer/Peripehral), multifunctional, all-in-one (AIO), or Multifunction Device (MFD), is also an office machine connected to a computer which incorporates the functionality of multiple devices in one, so as to have a smaller footprint in a small business or office setting or to provide centralized document management/ distribution/ production in a large-office setting. A typical MFP may act as a combination of some or all of the following devices, viz., E-mail, Fax, Photocopier (Xerox), Printer & Scanner. The products, viz., Digital Multi Function Devices of several brands such as Canon, Sharp, and Konica Minolta, imported and marketed by are connectible to the computers to print, scan and copy, facsimile and fax the documents. As per the details available in the brochure furnished along with the application by the applicant-firm of the imported multifunction devices, it is found that they are predominantly usable, stands connected to the computers to perform the tasks for the performance of which the machines are so designed and programmed."

9. Coming to the case on hand, assuming that the other interpretation given by the lower authorities is not accepted, on a conspectus of the issue raised by the petitioner and the orders passed by the authorities below, we find that the issue that has to be decided is whether image runner  multifunction network printer is a "peripheral" of a computer or such other device having different functional capability which would fall under other entries as contended by the Department. It is seen from the order of the Authorities below that the technical details of the Image Runner have already been submitted before the lower authorities.

10. The first issue that the petitioner has been canvassing is the predominant use of the goods in question. It is the specific plea of the petitioner before the Original Authority as well as before the first Appellate Authority that the image runner is predominantly a multifunction network printer and it performs other functions like scanning, fax, documents storage and copying. Besides the facility of network printing, the add on features of scanning, fax, photocopying make the goods a multi-function device.