Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ammonia printing and developing machine manufactured by the appellants was classifiable as an office machine and apparatus under Tariff Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff and whether it fell within any exempted item under Notification No. 51/70-C.E. dated 1-3-1970.
Analysis: The machine was used in drawing offices, architects' offices and industrial offices for developing blueprints, but that use did not take it outside the category of office machine and apparatus. On the material produced by the appellants, the machine printed drawings on tracing paper onto sensitised paper and then developed them by ammonia liquid, which answered the functional description of a photocopying machine. In fiscal classification, the common parlance and trade understanding of the article were relevant, and the technical material filed by the appellants themselves showed that it was understood in the trade as a photocopy machine. The challenge based on the Appellate Collector's alleged reliance on a Board circular was rejected because the order was based on the material and arguments before him.
Conclusion: The machine was rightly treated as a photocopying machine falling under Tariff Item 33D and within the exempted schedule entry under Notification No. 51/70-C.E.; the appeal failed.