9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary 2007, does not make any distinction between old / used and new products as far as MFDs are concerned, it follows as an inevitable and indisputable sequitur that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as it is misread the clarification, Ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority dated 02.09.2014. The respondent is directed to redo the assessment obviously in the light of the clarification / order of the Advance Ruling Authority dated 02.09.2014 bearing in mind that there is no distinction between old / used products and new products as far as MFDs, which find place in Entry namely Serial No.68 in Part-B of First Schedule read with Item 22(a) in the List of Information Technolo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid 'Multifunction Printers' are imported from Japan and are sold locally inside the State of Tamilnadu and as part of inter-state sales also. These goods are referred to as 'Multi Functional Devices' and shall be referred to as 'MFD' [for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience] d) MFD goods are classified as one falling under Customs Tariff with reference to Hormonised Numeric System 8471, which is equivalent to all the First Schedule adumbration qua CST Act, which reads as follows: '68(22). Computer systems and peripherals, Electronic diaries (a) Computer systems, Peripherals and parts. (b) Electronic diaries' e) To b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions filed by the writ petitioner came to be disposed of on 30.06.2016 by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. Vide this order, Hon'ble Single Judge, directed the respondents to redo the assessment after taking into consideration the aforesaid order of Advance Ruling Authority. Thereafter, the respondent embarked upon the exercise of redoing the aforesaid order of this Court and that culminated in the impugned order i.e., impugned assessment order. i) Assailing the impugned assessment order, inter alia on the ground that it is not in tandem with the clarification / order of Advance Ruling authority, instant writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. If that be the case, in the absence of any disputation that the relevant list i.e., the list of Information Technology products as notified by the Government vide Notification No.II(1) / CTR / (a-6) / 2007 in G.O.Ms.No.3, CT R(B1) Department dated 1st January 2007, does not make any distinction between old / used and new products as far as MFDs are concerned, it follows as an inevitable and indisputable sequitur that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as it is misread the clarification, Ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority dated 02.09.2014. 10. The respondent is directed to redo the assessment obviously in the light of the clarification / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
