Cc Vs. Suresh Productions (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is a revenue appeal against order-in-appeal no. c3/145/95 dated 30.12.1994 by which the commissioner (appeals) has held that the imported item, i.e. rd continuous wet/dry motion picture printer 35 mm is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of customs notification no. 81/84 in terms of si. no. 31 with description of goods as "automatic film processor for use in the printing industry" and to be falling under chapter heading 90 of customs tariff.2. the assistant commissioner in the order-in-original had noted, after a perusal of catalogue, technical write up and flow chart that the item under reference is a continuous contact motion picture film printer used in cinematographies, colour laboratories in which business the importers are engaged in. he has noted that the item is not an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. he has held that although it is assessable under heading 90.10 but will not be eligible for the concessional assessment in terms of notification 81/94 as an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. the commissioner reversed this finding on the reasoning that although the foreign supplier has described the equipment as printers, in fact this is a short form of description given by supplier of the item called "automatic film processor for cinematographic film printer". he has noted that .these type of equipments are developed, manufactured and marketed by several other countries such as usa, uk, germany, france and japan, and such manufacturer describe the equipments in their own way as there is no international standard names available to them. he has noted that the heading 9010.20 of the customs tariff covers all the apparatus and equipments for photography (including cinematography laboratories) other than those covered by other headings in the tariff.he has noted that since the classification has been accepted under this heading, therefore it is also eligible for concessional rate of duty under the notification. he has drawn strength from tribunal judgment whose title is not given in the order but said to be . he has noted that the judgment referred to notification no. 11/77 but even there, the description was automatic processor. therefore, he held that he does not see any objection to extend the concession to the item namely, r.d. continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm with accessories imported by the assessee extending the benefit as the item is nothing but an automatic film processor for use in the printing industry/falling under sub-heading 9010.20 and as indicated in the si. no. 31 of the table annexed to the said notification.3. revenue contend in this appeal that the impugned goods described as r.d. continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm is not an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. although its classification has to be under 90.10, but however, it is not eligible for the concessional assessment in terms of the said notification. the revenue has stated as follows: printer:-bell & howell model 6125e with bidirectional dry printing speeds upto 960 ft/minute and film capacity of 4000 ft provides efficient high quality volume release print production. copy of catalogue is enclosed. technical details of the printer are as below: using this equipment the image from the negative film is transferred on to a positive film by means of contact printing procedure. at the time of printing, in order to get a perfect colour balance as the original scene, the red green blue (rgb) data obtained from the colour analyser is fed to the tape reader of the printer which in turn is stored in a microprocessor which controls the light valves to achieve the colour balance envisaged. at this stage the latent image is formed on the positive film. to make a print from the negative film, both the negative and the positive films (raw stock) in contact is passed through the printer gate and the exposure is made through the light valve mechanism which is actuated by the signals received from the computerised system, the data which is obtained from a colour analyser. the image in the negative film transferred onto the positive film and recorded as a latent image. now to make the latent image visible, and permanent, the positive film is to be developed in the processing machines using various chemicals. standard processing machine is a continuous processing equipment which consists of a film feeding facility, number of tanks containing various processing solution like prebath, developer, wash, bleach, fix, wash, final wash and dry. the printed reels containing the latent image is passed through the machine and the permanent image emerges after interaction with the above mentioned chemicals at various stages involved in processing. the film is finally washed and dried. the end-product after processing is ready for viewing. the printer is a devise by which the image is transferred from the negative film on to the positive film in the latent image film. the processor is a devise which develops the latent image into a permanent and visible image by using various chemical solutions, wash water etc. printer is different from the processor. printer is a dark room operating machine and a processor is a daylight processing machine. printer is highly sophisticated electronic equipment whereas the processor is basically a mechanical machine using chemicals for developing in film. the benefit envisaged under notification no. 81/94 vide entry no. 31 is only for automatic film processor. but, whereas the equipment namely bell & howell model 6125e, imported by m/s. suresh productions p. ltd. is only dry/wet motion printer and not processor. hence, the said notification benefit cannot be extended to the imported goods namely the printer. since the order-in-appeal cannot be accepted for the reasons covered above an appeal may be preferred against the order-in-appeal passed by collector (appeals). it is, therefore, prayed that the order-in-appeal which has not duly considered the various basic aspect in detail on their merits may kindly be set aside and the order of the original authorities restored to file.4. arguing for the revenue ld. dr pointed out from the description given in the invoice that there is no dispute on the description as given in the invoice which is as follows: (1) bhp 6125 rd continuous wet/dry motion picture printer 35 mm with accessories (2) bhp 037697 35 mm dry picture head (3) spare parts as per proforma inv. no. 1672/93 dt. 30.8.1993-total price: usd: rs. 122472/- he submits that the importer is not in the business of printing industry. they are motion picture producers and the item is meant for printing motion picture on continuous wet/dry motion picture of 35 mm film. on this, appellant not being in the printing industry is an admitted position. the commissioner himself after noting this fact has on the basis of his personal opinion proceeded to hold that 'he sees no objection to extend the benefit of the notification to the item as it is nothing but an automatic film processor for use in the printing industry'. he points out that when assessee importer is not in the printing industry and not carrying on that activity and the notification being specific for granting benefit only to those who are in printing industry, therefore, the commissioner has committed a serious error in extending the benefit even to an industry which is in the production of films which is not correct and requires to be reversed. he points out that the arguments raised by the assessee importer that the item being used for printing and developing film should be taken as an activity of printing industry cannot be accepted as the tribunal in the case of cce v. garden silk mills (p) ltd. has clearly held that the term "printing industry' has to be understood as understood in the commercial trade parlance. in that case, the concessional rate of duty was for rubber blankets for use in printing industry. a textile manufacturer had imported the same and claimed the benefit and the tribunal negatived the claim on the ground that textile industry is not a printing industry. he points out that the claim of the assessee on the basis of the judgment cited by the commissioner is misleading and not correct, as that case pertained to anand bazaar patrika v. cce who were none other than" in the trade of printing industry". the situation was reversed in that case inasmuch as that the benefit had been denied to a person in printing industry on the ground that the equipment is a photographic item. the tribunal held that appellants being in printing industry and there was no dispute with regard to the item being automatic film processor used in the printing industry, therefore the benefit is required to be extended. in the present case, the item is also not an automatic film processor as pointed out in the literature as there is a difference between film processor used in printing industry and the one as described in the invoice which is used for continuous wet/dry motion picture printer.the literature itself distinguishes an automatic film processor used in the motion picture printer and in the paper industry. he points out to the larger bench judgment of light publications ltd. v. cce mumbai 2000 (121) elt 455 which dealt with the classification of item on the principles of photography. he has noted that the larger bench after examining the product held that when a product is working on photographic principle, it has to be classified under heading 90 irrespective of the end use condition and trade parlance test which are not decisive factors in the context of the case at hand. hence the tribunal approved the judgment of print asia corporation case ; thomson press 1996 (62) ecr 676; cc mombay v. versa publications ltd. and overruled collector v. anand bazaar patrika and that of kasturi & sons v. cc 1998 (44) elt 488. he submits that the counsel is relying on this judgment but in fact it supports the revenue's case as classification is not the criteria for extending the benefit but the terms of the notification and the importer is only engaged in printing industry alone is entitled for the benefit. ld. dr. points out that there is no dispute on the respondent being in the film production business which is an independent industry than printing industry. hence, he prays for over-ruling the commissioner/appeal's order and for approving the order of the assistant commissioner.5. ld. consultant for the respondent shri i. arokiaswamy and chartered accountant shri suresh contend that as on the date of the commissioner (appeals) passing the order, the citation noted by him in the order with regard to kerala state film development corporation v. cce holding automatic film processor to be entitled to the concession of notification no. 11/77 dated 15.1.1977 was correctly followed. the subsequent judgment now relied cannot have an effect as on that day the commissioner has rightly followed the judgment which was in force. he further points out, that in the case of andhra patrika, madras v.collector of customs, madras 1983 elt 1103 (cegat) : 1983 ecr 1416d (t), the tribunal held that automatic film processor was covered under notification no. 11/77-cus. as appellant was using it in their printing industry. he submits that the activity of printing done by the appellants with regard to cinematographic film should also be considered as an activity of printing industry even if they are in cinematography industry. as the process of automatic film processor is that of printer and since importer did the job of producing positive film or negative film, therefore the process is to be taken as a process in printing industry and the benefit should be extended.6. ld. d.r. countering the argument, pointed out that in the case of andhra patrika citation referred to by the consultant, the tribunal had clearly noted that the appellant therein was using it in their printing industry and therefore, the exemption was extended. while in the present case, the appellant is not using in their printing industry, therefore it cannot be considered as falling under printing industry as admittedly they are under a different industry, i.e. cinematography industry. the test of commercial understanding of a printing industry has already been laid down in the citation referred to by him, i.e. cce v. garden silk mills (p) ltd. (supra). he prayed for allowing the revenue appeal.7. on a careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that revenue has made of a clear case in this appeal. in terms of the invoice, the description of the item as already noted, the bhp 6125 r.d. continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm. the respondent is in the trade of film production and the item is used in cinematography industry. the terms of si. no. 31 of the impugned notification clearly states that the automatic film processor should be used in the printing industry. in the present case, admittedly the importer are not in the printing industry and the item imported by them is not being used in the printing industry.furthermore, the description of the item as noted in the invoice read along with the technical literature and catalogue clearly indicates that the impugned item is being clearly used for the purpose of printing the exposed negative before giving the impression on the positive film. the respondent have also, filed the stages of functioning of the automatic film processor which indicates that the unexposed negative enters the printer. it gets exposed in film, shooting and will be developed in the lab. it is stated that exposed negative film colour analyser for colour correction purpose is watched.and based on the primary colours (rgp, red, green, blue), a floppy will be prepared in the colour analyzer. such corrected floppy will be put in the printer for getting the final print (on the positive stock) with the due intensity of colour as adjusted in the colour analyzer. the process is described in the flow chart given by the respondent prepared by the southern india film chamber of commerce clearly shows that the item is clearly used for printing a negative and creating a positive film. the entire item is utilised not in the printing industry but in the cinematography industry. therefore, in terms of commercial understanding, a printing industry cannot be understood to be a cinematography industry. the terms of the notification clearly lays down that the item is required to be used in the printing industry.when the use of the item has been restricted in the printing industry and therefore the terms of the notification cannot be enlarged to grant to a unit which is not a printing industry. in the case of andhra patrika (supra) the benefit of notification no. 11/77-cus. was denied to a person importing automatic film processor for using in their printing industry. there was dispute on the importer being a printing industry and about the item exclusively used in the printing industry, therefore the denial of benefit of notification was not approved.likewise, in kerala state film development corporation, the tribunal in its very short order followed the judgment rendered in prasad production pvt. ltd. case. that order is not before us and the activity of the appellants therein has not clearly been brought out in the judgment. in any case the larger bench in the case of light publications ltd. v. cc (supra) has clearly held that end-use-consideration and trade parlance test is not a decisive factor and hence the classification of the imported printing plates, master micro was held to be under heading 90.10 as against the claimed heading 84.34. therefore, in terms of this larger bench judgment, the judgment of kerala state film development corporation will not be a good law. it is also not shown by the respondents that the automatic film processor for use in the printing industry is the same as the one imported by them. in terms of the write up filed by the respondent as well as the write up extracted from the revenue appeal, there appears to be a clear distinction between an automatic film processor for use in printing industry and the item imported which is described as bmp 6125 r.d.continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm. the respondents have not demonstrated that the item described in the notification is the same as that of which has been imparted. further, there being no dispute on the respondent not being a printing industry and that they being in the cinematography industry, therefore the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the item described in the invoice.in the case of cc v. garden silk mills (supra), the tribunal has clearly held that the word "industry" is not defined in notification no. 169/99-cus. which grants benefit to rubber blankets for use in printing industry. the tribunal noted that as the word "industry is not defined in the notification nor anywhere in tariff nor its definition be adopted from any other statute. it held that the scope of the term printing industry has to be construed based on how it's understood in its commercial sense and not because the process employed in the technical sense, i.e. printing. therefore, the tribunal upheld the revenue's contention for denial of benefit to rubber blankets imported by the respondent who were in the textile sector. this judgment also applies to the facts of the present case.8. in view of our reasoning given, the revenue appeal is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. C3/145/95 dated 30.12.1994 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the imported item, i.e. RD Continuous Wet/Dry Motion Picture Printer 35 MM is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 81/84 in terms of SI. No. 31 with description of goods as "Automatic Film Processor for use in the Printing Industry" and to be falling under Chapter Heading 90 of Customs Tariff.

2. The Assistant Commissioner in the Order-in-Original had noted, after a perusal of catalogue, technical write up and flow chart that the item under reference is a Continuous Contact Motion Picture film Printer used in cinematographies, colour laboratories in which business the importers are engaged in. He has noted that the item is not an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. He has held that although it is assessable under heading 90.10 but will not be eligible for the concessional assessment in terms of Notification 81/94 as an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. The Commissioner reversed this finding on the reasoning that although the foreign supplier has described the equipment as Printers, in fact this is a short form of description given by supplier of the item called "Automatic Film Processor for Cinematographic Film Printer". He has noted that .these type of equipments are developed, manufactured and marketed by several other countries such as USA, UK, Germany, France and Japan, and such manufacturer describe the equipments in their own way as there is no international standard names available to them. He has noted that the heading 9010.20 of the Customs Tariff covers all the apparatus and equipments for photography (including cinematography laboratories) other than those covered by other headings in the tariff.

He has noted that since the classification has been accepted under this heading, therefore it is also eligible for concessional rate of duty under the notification. He has drawn strength from Tribunal judgment whose title is not given in the order but said to be . He has noted that the judgment referred to Notification No. 11/77 but even there, the description was automatic processor. Therefore, he held that he does not see any objection to extend the concession to the item namely, R.D. continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm with accessories imported by the assessee extending the benefit as the item is nothing but an automatic film processor for use in the printing industry/falling under Sub-Heading 9010.20 and as indicated in the SI. No. 31 of the Table annexed to the said Notification.

3. Revenue contend in this appeal that the impugned goods described as R.D. continuous wet/dry motion picture printer, 35 mm is not an automatic film processor for use in printing industry. Although its classification has to be under 90.10, but however, it is not eligible for the concessional assessment in terms of the said Notification. The Revenue has stated as follows: Printer:-BELL & HOWELL model 6125E with Bidirectional dry printing speeds upto 960 ft/Minute and film capacity of 4000 ft provides efficient high quality volume release print production. Copy of catalogue is enclosed. Technical details of the printer are as below: Using this equipment the image from the negative film is transferred on to a positive film by means of contact printing procedure. At the time of printing, in order to get a perfect colour balance as the original scene, the Red Green Blue (RGB) data obtained from the colour analyser is fed to the tape reader of the printer which in turn is stored in a microprocessor which controls the light valves to achieve the colour balance envisaged. At this stage the latent image is formed on the positive film.

To make a print from the negative film, both the negative and the positive films (Raw stock) in contact is passed through the Printer gate and the exposure is made through the light valve mechanism which is actuated by the signals received from the Computerised System, the data which is obtained from a colour analyser. The image in the negative film transferred onto the positive film and recorded as a latent image.

Now to make the latent image visible, and permanent, the positive film is to be developed in the processing machines using various chemicals.

Standard processing machine is a continuous processing equipment which consists of a film feeding facility, Number of tanks containing various processing solution like Prebath, developer, wash, bleach, fix, wash, final wash and dry.

The Printed reels containing the latent image is passed through the machine and the permanent image emerges after interaction with the above mentioned chemicals at various stages involved in processing.

The film is finally washed and dried. The end-product after processing is ready for viewing.

The Printer is a devise by which the image is transferred from the negative film on to the positive film in the latent image film.

The Processor is a devise which develops the latent image into a permanent and visible image by using various chemical solutions, wash water etc.

Printer is different from the processor. Printer is a dark room operating machine and a processor is a daylight processing machine.

Printer is highly sophisticated electronic equipment whereas the processor is basically a mechanical machine using chemicals for developing in film. The benefit envisaged under Notification No. 81/94 vide entry No. 31 is only for Automatic Film Processor. But, whereas the equipment namely BELL & HOWELL Model 6125E, imported by M/s. Suresh Productions P. Ltd. is only Dry/Wet Motion Printer and not Processor. Hence, the said notification benefit cannot be extended to the imported goods namely the Printer.

Since the Order-in-Appeal cannot be accepted for the reasons covered above an appeal may be preferred against the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals).

It is, therefore, prayed that the order-in-appeal which has not duly considered the various basic aspect in detail on their merits may kindly be set aside and the order of the original authorities restored to file.

4. Arguing for the Revenue Ld. DR pointed out from the description given in the invoice that there is no dispute on the description as given in the Invoice which is as follows: (1) BHP 6125 RD continuous wet/dry motion picture printer 35 MM with accessories (2) BHP 037697 35 MM Dry picture head (3) spare parts as per proforma Inv. No. 1672/93 dt. 30.8.1993-Total Price: USD: Rs. 122472/- He submits that the importer is not in the business of printing industry. They are Motion Picture Producers and the item is meant for printing motion picture on continuous wet/dry motion picture of 35 mm film. On this, appellant not being in the printing industry is an admitted position. The Commissioner himself after noting this fact has on the basis of his personal opinion proceeded to hold that 'he sees no objection to extend the benefit of the notification to the item as it is nothing but an automatic film processor for use in the printing industry'. He points out that when assessee importer is not in the printing industry and not carrying on that activity and the notification being specific for granting benefit only to those who are in printing industry, therefore, the Commissioner has committed a serious error in extending the benefit even to an industry which is in the production of films which is not correct and requires to be reversed. He points out that the arguments raised by the assessee importer that the item being used for printing and developing film should be taken as an activity of printing industry cannot be accepted as the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. has clearly held that the term "printing industry' has to be understood as understood in the commercial trade parlance. In that case, the concessional rate of duty was for rubber blankets for use in printing industry. A Textile manufacturer had imported the same and claimed the benefit and the Tribunal negatived the claim on the ground that Textile industry is not a printing industry. He points out that the claim of the assessee on the basis of the judgment cited by the Commissioner is misleading and not correct, as that case pertained to Anand Bazaar Patrika v. CCE who were none other than" in the trade of printing industry". The situation was reversed in that case inasmuch as that the benefit had been denied to a person in printing industry on the ground that the equipment is a photographic item. The Tribunal held that appellants being in printing industry and there was no dispute with regard to the item being automatic film processor used in the printing industry, therefore the benefit is required to be extended. In the present case, the item is also not an automatic film processor as pointed out in the literature as there is a difference between film processor used in printing industry and the one as described in the Invoice which is used for continuous wet/dry motion picture printer.

The literature itself distinguishes an automatic film processor used in the motion picture printer and in the paper industry. He points out to the Larger Bench judgment of Light Publications Ltd. v. CCE Mumbai 2000 (121) ELT 455 which dealt with the classification of item on the principles of photography. He has noted that the Larger Bench after examining the product held that when a product is working on photographic principle, it has to be classified under heading 90 irrespective of the end use condition and trade parlance test which are not decisive factors in the context of the case at hand. Hence the Tribunal approved the judgment of Print Asia Corporation case ; Thomson Press 1996 (62) ECR 676; CC Mombay v. Versa Publications Ltd. and overruled Collector v. Anand Bazaar Patrika and that of Kasturi & Sons v. CC 1998 (44) ELT 488. He submits that the counsel is relying on this judgment but in fact it supports the Revenue's case as classification is not the criteria for extending the benefit but the terms of the notification and the importer is only engaged in printing industry alone is entitled for the benefit. Ld. DR. points out that there is no dispute on the respondent being in the film production business which is an independent industry than printing industry. Hence, he prays for over-ruling the Commissioner/Appeal's order and for approving the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

5. Ld. Consultant for the respondent Shri I. Arokiaswamy and Chartered Accountant Shri Suresh contend that as on the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) passing the order, the citation noted by him in the order with regard to Kerala State Film Development Corporation v. CCE holding Automatic Film Processor to be entitled to the concession of Notification No. 11/77 dated 15.1.1977 was correctly followed. The subsequent judgment now relied cannot have an effect as on that day the Commissioner has rightly followed the judgment which was in force. He further points out, that in the case of Andhra Patrika, Madras v.Collector of Customs, Madras 1983 ELT 1103 (CEGAT) : 1983 ECR 1416D (T), the Tribunal held that automatic film processor was covered under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. as appellant was using it in their printing industry. He submits that the activity of printing done by the appellants with regard to cinematographic film should also be considered as an activity of printing industry even if they are in cinematography industry. As the process of automatic film processor is that of printer and since importer did the job of producing positive film or negative film, therefore the process is to be taken as a process in printing industry and the benefit should be extended.

6. Ld. D.R. countering the argument, pointed out that in the case of Andhra Patrika citation referred to by the Consultant, the Tribunal had clearly noted that the appellant therein was using it in their printing industry and therefore, the exemption was extended. While in the present case, the appellant is not using in their printing industry, therefore it cannot be considered as falling under printing industry as admittedly they are under a different industry, i.e. Cinematography industry. The test of commercial understanding of a printing industry has already been laid down in the citation referred to by him, i.e. CCE v. Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). He prayed for allowing the Revenue appeal.

7. On a careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that Revenue has made of a clear case in this appeal. In terms of the Invoice, the description of the item as already noted, the BHP 6125 R.D. continuous Wet/Dry Motion Picture Printer, 35 mm. The respondent is in the trade of film production and the item is used in Cinematography industry. The terms of SI. No. 31 of the impugned Notification clearly states that the automatic film processor should be used in the printing industry. In the present case, admittedly the importer are not in the printing industry and the item imported by them is not being used in the printing industry.

Furthermore, the description of the item as noted in the Invoice read along with the technical literature and catalogue clearly indicates that the impugned item is being clearly used for the purpose of printing the exposed negative before giving the impression on the positive film. The respondent have also, filed the stages of functioning of the automatic film processor which indicates that the unexposed negative enters the printer. It gets exposed in film, shooting and will be developed in the lab. It is stated that exposed negative film colour analyser for colour correction purpose is watched.

And based on the primary colours (RGP, red, green, blue), a floppy will be prepared in the colour Analyzer. Such corrected floppy will be put in the printer for getting the final print (on the positive stock) with the due intensity of colour as adjusted in the Colour Analyzer. The process is described in the flow chart given by the respondent prepared by the Southern India Film Chamber of Commerce clearly shows that the item is clearly used for printing a negative and creating a positive film. The entire item is utilised not in the printing industry but in the cinematography industry. Therefore, in terms of commercial understanding, a printing industry cannot be understood to be a cinematography industry. The terms of the Notification clearly lays down that the item is required to be used in the printing industry.

When the use of the item has been restricted in the printing industry and therefore the terms of the Notification cannot be enlarged to grant to a unit which is not a printing industry. In the case of Andhra Patrika (supra) the benefit of Notification No. 11/77-Cus. was denied to a person importing automatic film processor for using in their printing industry. There was dispute on the importer being a printing industry and about the item exclusively used in the printing industry, therefore the denial of benefit of Notification was not approved.

Likewise, in Kerala State Film Development Corporation, the Tribunal in its very short order followed the judgment rendered in Prasad Production Pvt. Ltd. case. That order is not before us and the activity of the appellants therein has not clearly been brought out in the judgment. In any case the Larger Bench in the case of Light Publications Ltd. v. CC (supra) has clearly held that end-use-consideration and trade parlance test is not a decisive factor and hence the classification of the imported printing plates, Master Micro was held to be under heading 90.10 as against the claimed heading 84.34. Therefore, in terms of this larger bench judgment, the judgment of Kerala State Film Development Corporation will not be a good law. It is also not shown by the respondents that the automatic film processor for use in the printing industry is the same as the one imported by them. In terms of the write up filed by the respondent as well as the write up extracted from the Revenue appeal, there appears to be a clear distinction between an Automatic Film Processor for use in printing industry and the item imported which is described as BMP 6125 R.D.Continuous Wet/Dry Motion Picture Printer, 35 MM. The respondents have not demonstrated that the item described in the Notification is the same as that of which has been imparted. Further, there being no dispute on the respondent not being a printing industry and that they being in the cinematography industry, therefore the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended to the item described in the Invoice.

In the case of CC v. Garden Silk Mills (supra), the Tribunal has clearly held that the word "industry" is not defined in Notification No. 169/99-Cus. which grants benefit to rubber blankets for use in printing industry. The Tribunal noted that as the word "industry is not defined in the notification nor anywhere in Tariff nor its definition be adopted from any other statute. It held that the scope of the term printing industry has to be construed based on how it's understood in its commercial sense and not because the process employed in the technical sense, i.e. printing. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's contention for denial of benefit to rubber blankets imported by the respondent who were in the Textile sector. This judgment also applies to the facts of the present case.

8. In view of our reasoning given, the Revenue appeal is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. Ordered accordingly.