9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-1-1977 was denied to them. The respondents filed a refund claim claiming the benefit of Notification No. 11/77 before the Assistant Collector and their plea for refund was turned down by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the said Notification covered only Film processor and not the combined film/paper processor not withstanding the fact that the equipment imported was for the printing industry. The said notification for convenience of reference is reproduced below : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts automatic fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal before us, the matter required to be examined. 3. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the processors for the printing industry were of three types. These are - (1) Film Processor (2) Film/paper processor (3) Printing Plate Processor He stated that the Film processor and film/paper processor were two separate sets of apparatus and with different characteristics and that inasmuch as, the processor covered under notification was only a film processor and the processor imported by the respondents belong to film paper processor. The benefit of the notification could not be extended. He pleaded that the notification should be strictly interpreted. In this connection, he ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observe that it is not in dispute that the equipment imported processes the films and is also used for processing the paper. This Tribunal had taken note of this fact and held as under in the case of Andhra Patrika (supra) : (i) it should be an automatic film processor falling under heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and (ii) it should be imported for use in the printing industry. We find that both these conditions are fulfilled in the case before us. If, in addition to film processing the machine can perform the other function of paper processing as well, the exemption cannot be denied. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 7. We find no reason to depart from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
