1984 (3) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Ammonia Printing and Developing machine for excise purposes under tariff item 33D of CET and assessability under Notification No. 51/70-C.E.

The judgment revolves around the classification of Ammonia Printing and Developing machine for excise purposes under tariff item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff (CET) and its assessability under Notification No. 51/70-C.E. The core issue is whether the machine manufactured by the appellants falls under the category of office machines and apparatus as per the relevant tariff item and notification.

The dispute originated when the Central Excise department inspected the appellants' factory and issued a show cause notice questioning the excisability of the product. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay initially upheld the notice, but the Government of India later remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The subsequent order by the Appellate Collector classified the appellants' products under Tariff Item 33D and Item 28 of Notification No. 51/70, leading to the filing of a revision application and the present appeal.

During the appeal hearing, the appellants argued that their machine was not an office machine falling under tariff Item 33D but rather a machine used in Drawing Offices. They contended that the product did not qualify as a reproducing or photo-copying machine under the notification. The appellants also raised concerns about the legality of the Appellate Collector's decision, alleging reliance on a Board circular instead of exercising independent judgment.

On the respondent's side, it was argued that the product indeed constituted an office machine, emphasizing the generic usage of terms like reproducing machine and photo-copying machine in the notification. The respondent maintained that the Appellate Collector's decision was independent and not influenced by the circular referenced by the appellants.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and rejected the appellants' contention that the machine ceased to be an office machine because of its use in Drawing Offices. The Tribunal focused on whether the machine could be classified as a photo copying machine. By examining technical literature and dictionary definitions, the Tribunal found that the machine's function aligned with the common understanding of a photo copying machine. The Tribunal highlighted evidence from the Directorate General of Technical Development supporting this classification, which the appellants themselves submitted.

Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' argument regarding the Appellate Collector's reliance on the Board's circular, stating that the order did not mention such reliance and was based on the arguments and evidence presented. The Tribunal also rejected the appellants' reliance on a trade advertisement, emphasizing that the machine's specific designation in trade did not alter its classification as a photo copying machine. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's order and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the product in question was indeed a photo copying machine under the relevant tariff provisions and notification.