2009 (3) TMI 482 - HC - Central Excise

Machinery- The appellant, a dealer in photographic equipments, filed an application for clarification as to whether Mini lab with it s accessories sold by them answers the description of machinery for photography covered by Entry 83(60) of Third Schedule to the IC Act. Held that- The appeal is allowed as above modifying the order of the Commissioner to the above extent and with direction to the Assessing Officer to bifurcate the turnover of computer and monitor from the turnover of photographic equipments and assess the same at the appropriate rate.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Entry 83(60) of Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 regarding "Machinery for photography"

In this judgment, the High Court of Kerala addressed an appeal against an order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appellant, a dealer in photographic equipments, sought clarification on whether the "Mini lab with its accessories" sold by them falls under the category of "machinery for photography" as per Entry 83(60) of the Third Schedule to the Act.

The Commissioner had ruled against the appellant, stating that the products sold do not qualify as photographic machinery since they are not used for taking photographs. The Court examined the product description provided by the appellant, which included a computer system used for developing, enlarging, and printing photographs from exposed films and digital chips. The Court disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, stating that machinery for photography should encompass all equipment used in the process of taking photographs, including developers, printers, and integrated units for developing and printing photos.

The Court noted that the appellant's equipment facilitated the development and printing of photographs, making it fall under the category of machinery for photography. However, the Court observed that the attachment of a computer and monitor by the appellant was not considered photographic machinery and should be assessed separately. The Court allowed the appeal, modifying the Commissioner's order to assess only the machinery used for development and printing of photos under Entry 83(60) of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act, instructing the Assessing Officer to differentiate the turnover of the computer and monitor for appropriate assessment.