MODI XEROX LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the impugned order, the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals) held : "In view of the above, therefore, I find no merits in the Appeals warranting any interference with the adjudication orders in these 3 appeal cases. I, therefore, reject all the three appeals."

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of xerographic equipments and systems including Toners and Developers. They placed orders on Rank Xerox, U.K. for supply of various components required for making photocopiers of Model Modi Xerox 1025. The U.K. firm, in turn, purchased these items from M/s. Fuji Xerox, Japan. M/s. Fuji Xerox shipped the goods directly to the Appellants, but raised the invoices on M/s. Rank Xerox, U.K. who in turn, raised invoices for the identical amounts on the Appellants. M/s. Fuji Xerox, Japan reduced the prices of the components sometimes in May, 1987. These reductions became effective from 1 -11 -1986. These reductions were purported to have been given for the reason that Fuji Xerox, Japan have been fully able to amortize the cost of toolings specially developed for making components of this model of photocopiers. It was also argued by the Appellants that the fact that the cost of tools was fully amortized in November 1986 was realised by M/s. Fuji Xerox in May, 1987 as a consequence, the reduction of prices by M/s. Fuji Xerox took effect from 1 -11 -1986, the Appellants submits that M/s. Rank Xerox, U.K. in turn issued a credit note for the corresponding reduction in prices. M/s. Rank Xerox remitted the amount due to the Appellant through normal banking channel. The Department alleged that it was an amendment of the Bill of Entry and on the question of reduction in price of the imported goods, the ld. Collector (Appeals) held : "I, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appellants' contentions on this point as unsubstantiated and untenable." On the question of availability of benefit under Notification No. 59/87 -Customs, dated 1 -3 -1987, the ld. Collector held that "in their appeals, the Appellants had referred to the Chartered Engineers Certificate in this regard stating that Geared Motors are generally of two types, Internally Geared Motors and Externally Geared Motors; examining this, I observe that this certificate does not prove in any manner that the imported goods in this case were Internally Geared Motors entitled to the benefit of the said Notification."

(3.) WE have heard the submissions made by Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Counsel and Shri M.K. Shiv Kumar, the ld. JDR. We note that the Adjudicating Authority in the Adjudication Order had held :