Tribunal rules unassembled photocopiers not subject to Central Excise duty

The Tribunal upheld the decision that unassembled photocopying machines should be assessed under Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff, as no new product emerged from assembly. Additionally, it was determined that assembly of photocopiers did not amount to manufacture, leading to the rejection of the Department's appeal for Central Excise duty on assembled machines. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's Miscellaneous application seeking a rehearing, finding it lacked substance as the appeals were decided based on existing precedents and rulings.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against orders of Collector of Customs and Collector of Central Excise regarding levy of additional duty of Customs (CVD) on unassembled photocopying machines and liability to Central Excise duty on clearance of assembled photocopier.

Issue 1 - Levy of additional duty of Customs (CVD) on unassembled photocopying machines:
The appellant imported unassembled photocopying machines under Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that all components imported comprised complete machines assessable under 33D. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision based on Interpretation Rules to the Tariff. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that no new product emerged from the assembly, thus supporting the assessment under Item 33D. The appeal by the assessee was rejected.

Issue 2 - Liability to Central Excise duty on clearance of assembled photocopier:
The Department asked for Central Excise duty under Item 33D on the assembled machine cleared from the factory. The Assistant Collector granted a refund, stating that mere assembly did not amount to manufacture. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that duty was already paid on unassembled machines. The Tribunal cited previous cases to support the view that assembly did not constitute manufacture, leading to the rejection of the Department's appeal.

Separate Judgement:
The Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous application by the Department, which sought a rehearing based on an application by the appellant. The Tribunal found no substance in the application, as the appeals were disposed of based on precedents and rulings, and thus, the application was disposed of accordingly.

---