9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, by an assessment order dated 02.02.2015 tax has been levied @ 12.5% + 1% Additional Tax and on Appeal the matter was remanded. After remand the Assessing Authority had treated it as a Computer peripheral. Same is the case for Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Assessing Authority has treated the Printer in question as Multifunctional Device and taxed it @ 4% + 1% Additional Tax i.e. 5% by its Assessment order dated 02.03.2016. This Court has perused the impugned order it is apparent from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal had not given the benefit of the judgment rendered in M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [ 2010 (11) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT] and not treated Multifunctional Printer as a Computer peripheral only because the manufacturer in the case before the Supreme Court had given Certificates with regard to its Printers and various models thereof saying that parts of all such Multifunctional Devices were used to the extent of 75% to 85% for the purpose of printing - Keeping in mind the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai , this Court fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are bought mainly for the purpose of printing and are attached to Computers and they cannot perform their main function without the help of a Computer, therefore, they have to be treated as a Computer peripheral and taxed @ 4%. The Assessing Authority however, concentrated on other functions performed by Multifunctional Printer and treated it as an unclassified item. (6) The order of the Assessing Authority was challenged by filing an Appeal No.589 of 2012. The said Appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 03.07.2013. (7) Feeling aggrieved the revisionist filed a Second Appeal before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-III, Lucknow, namely Second Appeal No.399 of 2013. During the pendency of the Appeal the Tribunal had stayed 80% of the disputed amount, the revisionist had deposited the remaining 20% before it. (8) During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Commissioner in the exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Act passed an order on 05.03.2014 on an application of M/s Neoterric Infomatic Private Limited holding that the primary work of a Multifunctional Printer is that of printing which cannot be performed without the Computer. In com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by its order dated 06.06.2013 had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. After remand the Commissioner Commercial Tax, reclassified Multifunctional Device relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra) under the Category of Computer peripheral under Schedule-II Part-B at sl.no.22 holding taxability @ 4% + 1% Additional tax by an order dated 05.03.2014. (12) Since the invoice produced by the Revisionist before the Tribunal by the revisionist showed Multifunctional Printer as Multifunctional Device, the Tribunal did not provide the benefit of the order dated 05.03.2014 of the Commissioner and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority. (13) It has also been stated in the said counter affidavit that in the case of the Revisionist for Assessment year 2010-11 the First Appellate Authority had cancelled the Assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority by its order dated 01.12.2015. The Assessing Authority being satisfied that the case in hand was of a Multifunctional Device/Multifunctional Printer and came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as an item of Hardware, such as Modem that is not specifically part of the CPU, but used for the purpose of a Computer. The Tribunal has found that a Multifunctional Printer does Printing, Scanning, E-Mailing, Faxing, Photocopy etc. which functions are mostly performed by it independently of the Computer, therefore, it could not be said to be a Computer peripheral like the Visual Display Unit or Modem or such other things which are connected inseparably to a Computer. (18) Since this Revision has been admitted by this Court on the substantial question whether the judgment in M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra) should have been considered as settling the issue and whether a Tribunal was wrong in not giving its benefit to the revisionist ? This Court has considered the judgment rendered in M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra). It related to Classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants were engaged in a Trading of high technology reproduction and duplicating machines, Printers and multifunctional machines capable of discharging a number of functions. The appellants imported certain machines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel submitted that the multifunctional machines (which included Printer, Scanner and Copier) are not automatic data-processing machines (in short ADPM) they served as input and output devices of an ADPM (Computer) and thus they would fall under Sub-Heading 8471.60. (20) In M/s Xerox India (supra) learned counsel arguing on behalf of the Customs Authorities had pointed out that the machines in question were not Printers simplicitor attached to a Computer but are capable of performing a number of functions independently and no single function could be said to be predominant. The Supreme Court considered the Customs Act and the General Rules for interpretation of the Schedule-II attached to the Act, more specifically, it dealt with the goods/machinery which had to be classified by reference to such component as gave them their essential character or on the basis of function and what was their major function . In Paragraph-17 of M/s Xerox India (supra) the Supreme Court referred to the Certificate of the manufacturer which clearly showed that the printing function emerges as the main function giving the Multifunctional Machine its essential character. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
