9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gadish, Superintendent(AR), For The Respondent MR. SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Per: SS GARG The appellants have filed these 7 appeals against the impugned orders dt 20/02/2015, 03/07/2015 and 18/12/2015 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has classified the goods under Tariff Heading 8519 8100 and 8527 9990. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is identical, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the appeals are given herein below: - Appeal No. Impunged order Period of dispute C/21422, 21423, 21425, 21427, 21389/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als). The stand of the assessee before the Commissioner(Appeals) was that the Department has erred in classifying the goods under CTH 8519 8100 and 8527 9990 instead of 8518 as claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted that they have been importing the very same goods for a very long period and in the past, the same goods were classified under CTH 8518 2200 of the CTH 1975 by the Department. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the Commissioner(Appeals) passed the impugned order rejecting the submissions made by the appellant on the issue of classification and confirmed the reclassification of the goods as per the original assessment of Bills of Entry by relying on the Circular No.27/2013, The Commissioner(Appeals) c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal has also been confirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Commissioner Vs. Logic India Trading Co. [2016(342) ELT A34 (SC)]. He also submitted that the said decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Global Enterprises [2017(354) ELT 548 (Tri. Del.)], 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. 6. After considering the submissions of both parties and perusal of material on record, we are of the considered view that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Apex Court in the appellant's own case as reported in 2016(342) ELT A34(SC). We also find that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case cited supra has considered the said issue and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 161 (SC). Though the said decision did not deal with the items under consideration in the present appeal but the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It was he/d that the multifunctional printing machines having fax facility and screening facility would continue to fall under Heading 8471 of the Customs Tariff Act as 'digital printers' on/y inasmuch as the predominant function of the machine in question was printing 7 By following the ratio of the said decision in the appellant's own case which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable and therefore are set aside by allowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
