Per Lajja Ram :

These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Colorscans Pvt. Ltd. and the other by M/s. Convey Printers Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. As the issue for our consideration is common in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. We have heard Shri R. Subramanian, Consultant who appeared for both the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the respondent.

3. Shri R. Subramanian, ld. Consultant agreed that the goods imported which had been described in the Bill of Entries as "Chromograph DC-380 Colour Scanner with exposing unit ER and Standard Accessories" was a machine for uses anciliary to printing. It was correctly classifiable both for Customs and Central Excise purposes under Chapter Heading No. 84.43. They had filed a Miscellaneous Application pleading that the goods imported were correctly classifiable u/s.h. No. 8443.60 for Customs purposes and under Chapter sub-heading No. 8443.00 for Central Excise purpose. It was his submission that in the interest of justice, the goods be ordered to be classified u/s.h. 8443.60 for Customs purposes and u/s.h. No. 8443.00 for Central Excise purposes. When the goods are classified for Central Excise purposes u/s.h. No. 8443.00, they would be eligible for the benefit of Not. No. 59/87-Cus which exempts the machine for uses in anciliary to printing from payment of additional duty of customs.

4. In reply, Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR submitted that before the Adjudicating Authorities and the Appellate Authorities the appellants had already agreed that the goods imported were correctly classifiable u/s.h. 9006.10 for Customs purposes and u/s.h. 9006.00 for Central Excise purposes. He also submitted that the goods could not be considered as machines for uses anciliary to printing. He referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs - 1988 (38) ELT 568 (SC) where the Apex Court had held that the colour scanners cinematograph C-299 as per catalogue was not anciliary to printing. He also referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1240 whereunder notes Section XVI where the scope of Heading No. 84.43 as to include, the machines for uses ancillary to printing had been explained and this matter has also been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Bombay Vs. Larsen and Toubro 1996 (16) RLT 299 (T) = 1996 (87) ELT 715 (T).

5. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods imported were described as chromograph DC-380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories. The appellants had submitted before the adjudicating authority that they agreed, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Box Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI in Writ Petition No. 439 of 1981 judgement (Single Judge) delivered on 31.7.87 and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Scan Electronics Vs. C.C., Bombay - 1988 (16) ECR 300 (T) that the goods imported by them were correctly classifiable u/h No. 90.09 of the Customs Tariff.

6. Learned Consultant had argued that the goods imported were the machines for uses ancillary to printing. We consider that the goods imported could not be considered as machines for uses ancillary to printing as admittedly they are used for the preparation of the plates and in a process before the printing operation. As explained in the HSN Explanatory Note at page 1240 under Heading 84.43, the group of the machines for uses ancillary to printing are those machines which are for uses ancillary to printing exclusively designed to operate with printing machines and used during or after the printing operation for feeding, handling or further working the sheets or rolls of paper. The goods imported had no such function. By way of illustration, the stock or pile elevators, automatic feeders, sheet delivery mechanisms, folders, gummers, performators an