M/S. Balaji Enterprises, Madras vs The Collector Of Central Excise. Madras on 5 May, 1997
7. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the photo copying machine could not be taxed as a duplicating machine in the year under consideration He submitted that the subsequent notification No. 1223 dated 31.03,1992 separately classified photocopier, though the entry of duplicating machine existed as such, which shows the intent of the Legislature not to treat photocopy machine as duplicating machine. He submitted that the subsequent notification should be considered in interpreting the entry. He submitted that the goods which was specifically classified by subsequent notification can not be held to be included originally under any entry and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Balaji Enterprises, Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1997 SCC (5), 268.