1997 (12) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs and Central Excise Tariff

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two appeals concerning the classification of goods imported by M/s. Colorscans Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Convey Printers Pvt. Ltd. The issue at hand was the correct classification of the imported goods under the Customs and Central Excise Tariff. Both parties presented their arguments before the Tribunal, with Shri R. Subramanian representing the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha representing the respondent.

Shri R. Subramanian, the consultant for the appellants, acknowledged that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 84.43 for both Customs and Central Excise purposes. He argued that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 8443.60 for Customs and sub-heading 8443.00 for Central Excise, citing the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. for exemption from additional duty of customs for machines ancillary to printing.

On the other hand, Shri S.N. Ojha, representing the respondent, contended that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 9006.10 for Customs and Central Excise purposes. He referenced a Supreme Court decision and HSN Explanatory Notes to support his argument that the imported goods did not qualify as machines ancillary to printing.

The Tribunal carefully evaluated the submissions from both parties and examined the nature of the imported goods, described as chromograph DC-380 color scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had previously agreed on a different classification based on previous court decisions and tribunal rulings. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the imported goods could not be considered as machines ancillary to printing, as they were used for plate preparation before the printing process, unlike machines exclusively designed for printing operations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced previous cases and statutory provisions to support their decision that the goods fell under sub-heading 9006.00 for countervailing duty purposes. They emphasized that the goods imported did not meet the criteria for classification as cameras used for preparing printing plates under Heading No. 90.06 of the Customs and Excise Tariff.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision in both cases, rejecting the appeals based on the detailed analysis and interpretation of the classification criteria under the Customs and Central Excise Tariff. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate classification of imported goods for duty purposes and the application of relevant statutory provisions and court decisions in making such determinations.