9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he whole and not any individual parts. He held that there is nothing like accessories and that the whole system is one compact unit. He has held that the department has unnecessarily relied upon Proforma Invoice in their reference application under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, which is not correct. He has held that valuation adopted by the lower authority requires to be confirmed. While doing so, learned Collector (Appeals) has held that he has inspected the equipment in the factory with the assistance of technical personnel who explained to him the functions of the different units which constitutes the system and after thorough examination of the matter, has held that merely because separate values given in the proforma invoice, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the line printer, one each for English, Devanagari and Tamil. These type faces are mounted inside the printer to facilitate printing of the text in the required language. They form parts of the printer and therefore he has held that it cannot be considered as separate Units for the purposes of assessment. The same argument holds good for line printer software programmes; these are systems software which form part of the printer. Type faces and software programmes for different languages are offered separately to enable the users to select the same for the languages they require. But they form part of the line printer and cannot be considered as independent units for the purposes of assessment. However, he has held that boxes of ribbo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en up in the appeal memo and prays for a separate independent classification on merits with regard to the item printer and contended that the same would not get the benefit of Notification No. 114/80. He contended that it is an optional accessory and it had been invoiced separately and it had a separate function of proof-reading. He relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kumudam Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. CC as reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 568 wherein it had been held that ribbons for photostatsetting machine are required to be independently assessed and not allowed with the machine under Heading 96.12 of CET. Learned DR submits that this judgment arose from the same impugned order wherein the Collector had rejected the plea of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that machine which performs the principal function. He submits that in terms of this section notes, the main printer has to go alongwith the machine as it complements its work and as technically noted by Collector (Appeals) it cannot be bifurcated from the main machine. He also relied on the judgment in the case of CC v. Technological Centre as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) where in a similar circumstance, it was held that even imported parts are eligible for benefit of notification as the main equipment satisfies the condition of compulsory supply and no separate charges are given under Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function. 4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function. 5. For the purposes of these Notes, the expression "machine" means any machine, machinery, plant, equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goes to show that the item in question is required to be assessed alongwith the main machine under sub-heading 8442.10 read with notification in question and a printer cannot be separately classified as a data processing unit under sub-heading 8471.91. 8. We also note the judgment rendered in the case of CC v. Technological Centre as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has clearly held that parts imported would also be eligible for exemption when the main item is covered under the terms of the notification. Learned DR relied on appellant's own case regarding non-grant of benefit to ribbons, which is distinguishable as ribbons are held to be not parts of the main item and it has independent heading for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
