Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present writ petitions have been filed by Canon India Private Limited and Infres Methodex Limited. In the case of Canon India Private Limited, they have challenged the notice of default assessment of tax and interest issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (Act, for short).

2. By an interim order dated 6th July, 2009 in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd., it was directed that there shall be stay of the impugned demand. The said interim order has continued. In fact, the writ petition filed by Canon India Private Limited was entertained as at that stage reference was made to the decision of the advance ruling authority i.e. Commissioner, Trade and Taxes, Delhi in the case of Ricoh India Limited. The said decision of advance ruling authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter was challenged in this Court in STA 6/2010. In STA 6/2010, we have examined the question whether or not multi functional printers are input or output units under Entry No.41A of the notification issued under the Act. In the said case, we have held as under:-

"18. ... Therefore, in respect of the period prior to 30th November, 2005, we answer the aforesaid question of law recording that the multi function machines may or may not be computer peripheral, depending upon the main purpose or function which the machine was designed and manufactured to perform. If the principal and predominant purpose was to act as a computer printer or scanner or as an input or output devise of the computer, the multi functional machine would qualify and fall under entry 41A clause XXIII. However, if the machine was designed and manufactured for some other primary purpose, then it would not be covered by Entry 41A clause XXIII. Mere description or the nomenclature given by the manufacturer or trader is not relevant and the assessee should justify and establish their claim. We have applied the doctrine/test of principal and dominant purpose, as it is the most appropriate and logical test. The said test was applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Xerox India Ltd. (supra) for the purpose of Customs Act. A multi functional printer or machine may be able to perform several functions, but an ancillary or incidental function would not be relevant. The relevant determining factor in such cases even for the period before 31 st November, 2005, would be the dominant or main purpose. This would prevent misuse and mis- declaration by the seller, who may try and sell a photocopier and a duplicating machine as a computer peripheral when, in fact, the main purpose and object of the machine was is to make copies or duplicate documents.

19. With regard to the period after 30th November, 2005, we have to examine the relevant entries in 41A and compare them with the Entry No.4171 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. We have also to keep in mind the four notes, which we have interpreted above. As per the appellant, the multi functional machines/printers fall in the category of input/output units, which have been separately categorized at Sr. No.3 under column (2). It is not the case of the appellant that the aforesaid devices should be treated as an automatic data processing machines. It is claimed that they are input or output units. When we compare the entry input units and output units in column (2) with Entry No.8471.10.00, we find that the description is not identical. Words used in the notification are "input unit, (or) output unit". The word used in entry No. 8471.10.00 are input or output units, whether or not contain storage units in the same housing. There is no reference to or requirement of storage unit in column 2 of the notification. Multi functional machine it is stated can act as both an input unit and as an output unit. It combines both functions. Reference was made to Entry 8471.60, wherein words "combined input or output units" is used, but the same is a heading. This is clear as no rate of duty is prescribed/stipulated against the said heading.

Rate of duty is prescribed against each sub- heading. Thereafter, sub-headings read, printer, line printer, dot matrix printer, letter quality daisy wheel printer, graphic printer, plotter, laser jet printer, inkjet jet printer and others. "Others" fall under the sub-heading 8471.60.29. The multi functional machines/printers will not fall under any of the specific sub-heading, but would fall under the residual sub-heading 8471.60.29 i.e. "others". This is also clear when we examine the bills of entry, which have been filed by Canon India Private Limited, who have filed a writ petition before us and has been heard alongwith this appeal. In the said bills of entry, machines have been cleared under tariff entry 8471.60.29 i.e. "others".