Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1991 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (7) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Classification of automatic flexographic plate processor under Tariff Heading (T.H.) 84.35 CTA or T.H. 90.10 CTA, 1975.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the classification of an automatic flexographic plate processor with automatic "After exposure unit" and photopolymer plate and UV Lamp under Tariff Heading (T.H.) 84.35 CTA or T.H. 90.10 CTA, 1975. The Assistant Collector initially assessed it under T.H. 90.10 CTA, 1975, based on the function of the machine and relevant Explanatory Notes under Heading 90.10. On appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the appellants argued that the machine was exclusively for preparing printing blocks and not for photocopying, thus should be classified under T.H. 84.34. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the initial classification under T.H. 90.10 based on Explanatory Notes.

The appellants contended that the machine was solely for preparing printing blocks, not for photocopying, and therefore should be classified under T.H. 84.34. They argued that the machine did not perform photocopying functions as generally understood in trade. The JDR, on the other hand, relied on CCCN Explanatory Notes under T.H. 84.34 to argue that photo processors were excluded from that category. He also argued that the word 'laboratory' in T.H. 90.10 should be understood as a studio processing photographic films.

The Tribunal analyzed various decisions and the conflicting opinions regarding the classification of plate processors. They referred to the importance of applying the test of commercial parlance in classification, as established by the Supreme Court. Citing a previous case (Kasturi & Sons v. CCE), the Tribunal emphasized interpreting terms based on how the industry understands them. They concluded that the machine in question should be classified under T.H. 84.34, considering the general principle of interpreting Tariff Entries and the specific use of the machine for preparing printing plates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, classifying the automatic flexographic plate processor under Tariff Heading (T.H.) 84.34 instead of T.H. 90.10. They determined that T.H. 84.34 was more specific and appropriate for the goods in question, considering the machine's purpose in preparing printing plates.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates