9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Medical Film Processor under Chapter 9010.10 and he has passed a very detailed order and classification sought under sub-heading 9022.11 cannot be upheld in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals). He seeks for confirmation of the order as the order has been passed after due consideration of the submission made by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that with regard to the question as to whether the developer of X-ray film was capable of use as a developer in photographic film and vice versa, it was not possible to come to any conclusion in the absence of technical write-up or catalogue. Therefore, the plea of the appellants was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. None turned up for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion were as under :- The sine qua non for the purpose of classification under Heading 90.22 was that the apparatus ought to be based on the use of X-rays or of alpha, beta or gamma radiations . In Harmonised Tariff, the words apparatus based on the use of X-rays have been explained as follows : fundamental element of this apparatus is the unit containing the X-ray generating tube or tubes . It was admitted by the appellant that the apparatus imported by them was not used for generating X-rays and it did not contain, obviously, the X-ray generating tube or tubes, nor it was based on the use of alpha, beta or gamma radiations. The apparatus was used only for developing X-ray films. Obviously, therefore, the question of its classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also ruled out, as photographic film developer falling under sub-heading 9010.10 is undoubtedly more akin to the impugned goods than electro-diagnostic apparatus falling under sub-heading 9018.19. 10. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the present case and, therefore, I am inclined to agree with the Lower Authority that the impugned developer was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 9010.10 and, therefore, the demand confirmed is maintainable. ORDER For the reasons stated above, the appeal is rejected. 4. On consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the appellants have not produced any material evidence to come to a conclusion different than the one arrived at by the authorities below. In this view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
