Cc Vs. Aver Digital Imaging Inc.

Cc vs Aver Digital Imaging Inc.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 31, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39218

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39218
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: May 31, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondent

Aver Digital Imaging Inc.

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)(208)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....is shown. b) it is on record that earlier similar apparatus/appliances of model fp-500 were considered to be classified under 84.71. the plea now made that model fp 5000 not only exposes but also develops photo sensitive paper which model fp-500 could not, that cannot be a ground to change and depart from the classification under 8471 arrived at in case of model fp-500 which decision is followed by commissioner (appeal). c) the classification opinion for the very same/model to be classified under 8471 by united state of america department of commerce bureau of export, which is relied upon by the ld cc(appeal), cannot be lightly bushed aside as in the present appeal filed by revenue has no ground why such an opinion on classification based on hsn, the internationally adopted classification system should be departed from d) examining the chapter notes 5 to chapter 84 of the custom tariff especially the admitted fact by both sides that sans use of a computer, the entity cannot perform any independent function the classification under 8471 is called for and approved.2. we find the cc(appeal)'s order to be logical and find no reason to depart from the same on the grounds made out herein.3. consequently the revenue appeal of classification under chapter 9010 cannot be upheld. the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issue of classification of the Sienna FP 5000, 220 V Digital Printer (Computerised) settled by the CC(Appeals) under heading 8471 is to be upheld for the reasons- a) The acceptance of argument that the entity performs the functions as envisaged of an apparatus of heading 9010 and can perform the function of development of a photo sensitive film albeit with the assistance of a digital Computer Command will not be in accordance with the rejection of the very similar arguments advanced to place a photocopier working in tandem with a Computer in the case of Xerox Modi Corporation Ltd. as seen from para 5, was not accepted by the Tribunal to classify the entity as a photocopier. No contrary decision is shown.

b) It is on record that earlier similar apparatus/appliances of model FP-500 were considered to be classified under 84.71. The plea now made that model FP 5000 not only exposes but also develops photo sensitive paper which model FP-500 could not, that cannot be a ground to change and depart from the classification under 8471 arrived at in case of model FP-500 which decision is followed by Commissioner (Appeal).

c) The classification opinion for the very same/model to be classified under 8471 by United State of America Department of Commerce Bureau of Export, which is relied upon by the Ld CC(Appeal), cannot be lightly bushed aside as in the present appeal filed by Revenue has no ground why such an opinion on classification based on HSN, the internationally adopted Classification System should be departed from d) Examining the chapter notes 5 to chapter 84 of the Custom Tariff especially the admitted fact by both sides that sans use of a Computer, the entity cannot perform any independent function the classification under 8471 is called for and approved.

2. We find the CC(Appeal)'s order to be logical and find no reason to depart from the same on the grounds made out herein.

3. Consequently the Revenue appeal of classification under Chapter 9010 cannot be upheld. The same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cc vs Aver Digital Imaging Inc. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu