2001 (10) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and described under BoE as "Colour Scanner for cinema film industry and the function being that of to scan a negative film which has been held to be eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 30 of Notification No. 81/94- Cus. which reads "Colour scanner for use in printing industry." 2. The revenue contend that the Commissioner is erred in extending the benefit to the item used in cinema film industry which is not eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 30 of the said notification which applies only to an item used in printing industry. Further, it is stated that even in terms of the literature and the findings recorded, the item does not perform the function of colour scanner but does the work of colour analyser and the item is a colour mas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n printing and its literature. The item is entitled for the benefit of notification and the Commissioner has given detailed findings with regard to its eligibility. 6. On a careful consideration of the submission we find that revenue has made out a case in the matter for more than one reason. The item which is required to be granted benefit in terms of Sl. No. 30 is "Colour scanner for use in printing industry". The revenue's contention is that the item does not perform the function of colour scanner but in fact it performs the principal function of view colour analyser and that it is a calibrated machine for grading film and having the facility to transfer the positive film such edited to video cassettes in any of the popular video....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He further held that the use of item has been restricted in the printing industry. The terms of the notification cannot be enlarged to grant the unit which is not a printing industry. Ld. Consultant through the course of argument relied on the earlier judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Film Development Corporation v. CCE and that of Andhra Patrika, Chennai v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1103 (CEGAT). Further, this aspect has been considered by the Bench in the assessee's cited case and has noted that all judgments relied by the Consultant is no longer a good law in view of the Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Light Publication Ltd. v. CCE (supra). The Bench also noted that t....