A.K.SIKRI, J. - (1.) CLASSIFICATION of the machines known as Risograph, which are imported by the appellant M/s. HCL Limited, is the issue involved in the present appeal. The question is as to whether Risograph is an office machine having duplicating function and thus to be classified under sub - heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or is it a printing machine to fall under sub -heading 8443.50. The main chapter under which both the sub -headings fall is Chapter 84 which deals with 'Machinery and mechanical appliances'. Sub -heading 84.43 thereof relates to 'Printing machinery; machines for uses ancillary to printing' and various entries under this sub - heading are as follows: JUDGEMENT_52_LAWS(SC)7_2015.htm
(2.) SUB -heading 84.72, on the other hand, deals with 'Other office machines' and includes duplicating machines. Various entries under this sub -heading read as under: JUDGEMENT_52_LAWS(SC)7_20151.htm
(3.) AS per the appellant -assessee, Risograph machine is a printing machine which should be covered by sub -heading 8443.50, namely, 'other printing machinery'. On the other hand, the respondent -Revenue has taken the position that it is a specie of duplicating machine and falls under the sub - heading 8472.90, viz. 'Other'. Though under both the sub -headings the import duty is 65%, however, insofar as printing machinery is concerned, by virtue of Notification No. 59/94 -CUS dated March 01, 1994, which includes Chapter Heading 84.43, the duty is to be calculated at the rate of 25% ad valorem. That is the precise reason behind the present lis between the parties From the aforesaid, one thing is clear. Risograph machine does not fit in any of the specific descriptions contained either in sub -heading 84.43 or 84.72. Both the parties are trying to fit it in the respective residual clauses viz. "Other printing machine" or "Other" respectively. Therefore, what needs to be examined is as to whether the Risograph machine would belong to the family of 'printing machinery' or it belongs to the clan of 'duplicating machine'. Right from the Order -in -Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the view taken is in favour of the Revenue thereby holding the Risograph machine to be in the nature of a duplicating machine, which does not qualify to be a printing machine at all. The Tribunal, while holding that it is to be classified as an office machine having duplicating function, has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Pioneer International v. Collector of Customs, Kandla, 2000 122 ELT 430. The attempt on the part of the appellant to demonstrate that it does printing job and is improperly referred to as a duplicating machine has not cut any ice with the Tribunal which has chosen to follow its own decision in the case of Pioneer International. In a case like this, the first query of the Court was as to whether in the case of Pioneer International any appeal was preferred. Answer given was in the negative, which means that the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in Pioneer International was not tested in this Court.;