TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Notification dated 13.12.2002 issued under Section 3-A(1)(b) which corresponds to a similar entry in the earlier Notification dated 15.10.2000 at Serial No. 75 thereof which finds mention in the aforesaid Notification dated 26.10.2004, therefore, the following question of law arises for consideration in this case:- "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that Ribbon Cartridge is not a part of computer printer, therefore, not a computer hardware as such not amenable to tax @ 4% instead it was taxable @ 10% as an unclassified item as it was an accessory of computer printer and not its part ?" Both the learned counsel for the revisionist and State have agreed to address the Court on the aforesaid legal question today itself. The fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi Vs. Insulation Electrical Private Limited, wherein it has been held that a "Part" is an essential component of the whole without which the whole cannot function, whereas, "accessory" is something supplementary or subordinate in nature and need not be essential for actual functioning of the product. Based on the aforesaid it has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Dot Matrix printer can not be used without the ribbon cartridge and that the cartridge manufactured for a specific printer can not be used in another printer, meaning thereby, any other cartridge can not used in that printer. He further contended that in such matters the common parlance test is resorted to i.e. how the commodity is understood an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the revisionist has also relied upon two reports of experts which are contained in Annexure No. 3 and 4 to the revision to contend that even the experts of the Trade have opined that ribbon cartridge is part of Dot Matrix printer. In this context he has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ponds India Limited (Merged with H.L. Limited) Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow reported in 2008 (8) SCC 369 to contend that the experts opinion has to be given due weightage, however, he says that inspite of the said expert opinion having been filed before the Assessing Authority and which were also available before the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal at neither of these three levels the same was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence in that behalf even before the First Adjudicating Authority. Based on the aforesaid he submitted that no evidence whatsoever was led by the Revenue at any stage to establish that ribbon cartridge was not a part of Dot Matrix printer. The learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon the decision reported in 2012 (56) VST 472; Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and Ors., wherein the Cartridges of Ink-jet Printer and Laser Printer were held to be part of the printer. Shri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 132; State of U.P. Vs. Kores India Ltd. which has been referred in the judgments of the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore it. This would be essential in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commercial of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Insulation Electrical Private Limited so as to ascertain as to whether ribbon cartridge was a part of the Dot Matrix pinter and therefore a part of computer hardware or it was a simply an accessory as per the test laid down therein. Secondly, the question to be considered by the Tribunal would be as to whether a ribbon cartridge is sold along with the printer as was the evidence led in the case of M/s Select Technology Limited decided by the First Appellate Authority on 20.08.2014, which had been upheld by the Tribunal on 09.03.2017 as already mentioned hereinabove, as in the present case this Court fin....