Coronation Litho Works Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the present appeal relates to the classification of "step and repeat machine" imported by the appellants under bill of entry no. c-542 dated 21-8-1981. on importation the machine was classified under heading 90.10 cta. the appellants after clearing the goods claimed reclassification of the goods under heading 84.34 and also claimed the classification of the goods under tariff item 68 for purposes of c.v.duty. in appeal the collector of customs (appeals) confirmed the assessment of basic customs duty under heading 90.10 but allowed the appellant's claim for levy of additional duty under tariff item 68 of cet. the appellants then filed this appeal claiming classification of the goods under tariff heading 84.34 cta.2. we heard shri m. chandrasekharan, the ld. counsel for the appellants. shri chandrasekharan submitted that in three different appeals the appellate tribunal has taken the view that step and repeat machine should be classified under heading 84.40 cta. he cited the following judgments: (2) order no. 129/86-b2 dated 25-2-1986 in a.no. 135/84-b2 (srinivasa fine art v.cc madras) (3) order no. 440/87-b2 dated 3-4-1987 in appeal no. 1372/85-b2 (cc bombay v. photogravurs) [1987 (29) e.l.t. 647 (tribunal)].shri chandrasekharan submitted that he is willing to accept the classification of the goods under heading 84.40 as ordered earlier by the tribunal.3. shri j. gopinath, the ld. sdr, submitted that he reiterates the arguments he had advanced in the earlier three appeals to the effect that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading 90.10 of cta.apart from this he had nothing more to say except that the government have filed an appeal against the judgment in the case of cc bombay v.bharat vijay mills (supra) [1986 (24) e.l.t. 662].4. we have considered the arguments of both the sides. we have perused the earlier orders of the tribunal and find no reason to differ from them. we note that shri gopinath reiterates his arguments in the present appeal also. we reject the argument for the same reason as mentioned in the orders cited.5. as a result we order that step and repeat machine imported by the appellant be classified under heading 84.40 cta. the impugned orders are modified to this extent and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

Judgment:
1. The present appeal relates to the classification of "Step and Repeat Machine" imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. C-542 dated 21-8-1981. On importation the machine was classified under Heading 90.10 CTA. The appellants after clearing the goods claimed reclassification of the goods under Heading 84.34 and also claimed the classification of the goods under Tariff Item 68 for purposes of C.V.Duty. In appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the assessment of basic customs duty under Heading 90.10 but allowed the appellant's claim for levy of additional duty under Tariff Item 68 of CET. The appellants then filed this appeal claiming classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 84.34 CTA.2. We heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that in three different appeals the Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that step and repeat machine should be classified under Heading 84.40 CTA. He cited the following judgments: (2) Order No. 129/86-B2 dated 25-2-1986 in A.No. 135/84-B2 (Srinivasa Fine Art v.CC Madras) (3) Order No. 440/87-B2 dated 3-4-1987 in appeal No. 1372/85-B2 (CC Bombay v. Photogravurs) [1987 (29) E.L.T. 647 (Tribunal)].

Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that he is willing to accept the classification of the goods under Heading 84.40 as ordered earlier by the Tribunal.

3. Shri J. Gopinath, the Ld. SDR, submitted that he reiterates the arguments he had advanced in the earlier three appeals to the effect that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.10 of CTA.Apart from this he had nothing more to say except that the Government have filed an appeal against the judgment in the case of CC Bombay v.Bharat Vijay Mills (supra) [1986 (24) E.L.T. 662].

4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We have perused the earlier orders of the Tribunal and find no reason to differ from them. We note that Shri Gopinath reiterates his arguments in the present appeal also. We reject the argument for the same reason as mentioned in the orders cited.

5. As a result we order that step and repeat machine imported by the appellant be classified under Heading 84.40 CTA. The impugned orders are modified to this extent and the appeal is allowed accordingly.