Printer-cum-FAX machine classified under Heading 8471.60

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, determined the classification of a Printer-cum-FAX machine under Heading 8471.60 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Despite the Revenue's argument that the machine's primary function was as a FAX machine, the Tribunal found that the printer function was principal, leading to classification under Heading 8471.60. The Tribunal referenced Chapter Note 5(D) of Chapter 84 and specific conditions for printers, concluding that the machine met these criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues: Classification of Printer-cum-FAX machine under Heading 8471.60 or 8517.21

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue involved was the classification of a Printer-cum-FAX machine under Heading 8471.60 or 8517.21. The Revenue had appealed against the order-in-appeal that classified the machine under Heading 8471.60, while the adjudicating authority had classified it under Heading 8517.21. The key contention was whether the machine's principal function was that of a printer or a FAX machine.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, considering the machine's capabilities and functions. It was noted that the machine imported by the respondents could print directly from an ADP or send Fax messages. The Revenue argued for classification under Heading 8517.21 based on the machine's facsimile, communicating, and printing functions. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the machine combined both printer and FAX functions, with the printer being the principal function and having an interface with an ADP. This led to the conclusion that the machine should be classified under Heading 8471.60 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA).

The Tribunal further discussed Chapter Note 5(D) of Chapter 84, which mandates printers to be classified under Heading 84.71 if they meet specific conditions. It was determined that the machine in question satisfied these conditions, as it had an interface with an ADP and could accept or deliver data. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed correct in classifying the Printer-cum-FAX machine under Heading 8471.60.

Regarding the Revenue's argument that the primary function of the machine was that of a FAX machine, the Tribunal referred to Note 3 to Section XVI and Interpretative Rules but rejected this argument based on the machine's combined capabilities and the specific conditions outlined in the Chapter Notes. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the classification of the Printer-cum-FAX machine under Heading 8471.60.

---