Microfx vs State of Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.—The assessee has preferred these revision petitions, against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the assessee that the Hand-held Ticketing Machines falls under Heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This question in the case of the assessee itself came up for consideration before this Court under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the case of Microfx Vs. State of Karnataka, and connected matters which was decided on 9-7-2014 wherein this Court held as under:

"10. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, , how the goods are understood in the commercial sense has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of classification of the goods and the scientific and technical meaning has no place. Therefore, when the goods involved is a portable hand-held ticketing machine that is how the assessee has described the machine and that is how the customers have also understood it and in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 this ticket issuing machines are expressly included in Heading 8470, by any stretch of imagination, the Court cannot hold that it falls under Heading 8471 especially when it specifically states that "not elsewhere specified or included". The notification issued specified Heading 8471 does not include this ticketing machine. This is precisely what the authorities have concurrently held. Therefore, we do not see any error in the orders passed by any of the authorities. Therefore, the finding is just and proper and in accordance with law. Accordingly, we answer the said question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee".

In view of the said position of law there is no merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly these revision petitions are dismissed.