V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)

1. Brief Facts:

The appellants imported among other Gravure Processing Machines, an "Automatic Developing Machine", which is the subject-matter of disputed classification. The Revenue has classified the same under Heading 90.10 of CTA, 1975, whereas the appellants seek classification under heading 84.34. This classification has been upheld by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, this appeal to the Tribunal for classification of the Automatic Developing Machine under Chapter 84.34, C.T.A.

2. The main contentions put forth in the appeal are:-

(a) The Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that the Developing Machine develops sensitised carbon tissue paper or roto film which is contact printed in a dark room with the help of actinic light, while they had maintained before the Collector (Appeals) that the sensitised carbon tissue paper, which being printed is subjected to actinic light in the dark room, but the Developing Machine has nothing to do with the printing of carbon tissue paper. It is after the printing of the carbon tissue is over, with the help of vacuum frame and actinic light, that it is required to be developed, and Developing Machine comes into picture at this stage only. There is no ultra violet light used in the Developing Machine and only hot water is used by them.

(b) The Collector of Customs (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Developing Machine is used to develop photographically exposed surfaces, as the machine is not required for photographic purposes. That unlike in the process of photographic development, Developing Machine requires no developing agent. There is no chemical action as in the case of developing the films.

(c) The Collector (Appeals) had not given any finding on their contention that the Developing Machine is part and parcel of other machines viz. Transferring Machine and Etching Machine required to make Gravure Cylinders and that under Chapter 84.34, all machinery for preparing or working printing plates or cylinders are covered.

(d) The appellants also relied on the decision of the Collectors Conference whereby it was held in the case of Plate Processor Unit that, "As the Plate Processor Unit did not function on the principle of photography for development of the sensitised exposed plates but used acid etching process, the unit was more appropriately classifiable under heading 84.34. That in the instant case development of carbon tissue paper is done in Developing Machine by use of water at certain temperature and by use of either alcohol or water at certain temperature, unhardened gelatin portion is washed and hence no photographic process is involved".

(e) The Developing machine is one of the auxiliary machines required for the purpose of preparing Gravure Cylinders and classifiable under Heading 84.34 C.T.A.

3. Shri M.J. Nambiar, Ld. Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterated the above points. He said that the department had relied on Explanatory Notes in the CCCN which have only explanatory value. He pointed out that emphasis was on the Heading 84.34 and the scope of the Heading 84.34 covered the item under dispute viz. the Developing Machine and even if a photographic principle is involved, it will not take it out of the scope of the Heading 84.34. He referred to the Tribunal's decision in MANU/CE/0197/1984 : 1985 (19) E.L.T. 415 (Tribunal) in the case of M/s. Nyloprint Engravers, Calcutta v. Collr. of Customs, Calcutta, "Nyloprint Wash-out unit - Classifiable as printing machinery under Heading 84.34 and not under Heading 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975".

4. The Ld. J.D.R. Shri M.S. Arora, however, maintained that the Development Machine works on photographic principle. He referred to the Order-in-Original, Paras 3 and 4, which dealt with in detail, as to how the machine works and that it is required for photographic purposes and falls outside the scope of Heading 84.34. He referred to the following decisions :-

(i) MANU/CE/0