2002 (8) TMI 377 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of notification No. 51/96 dated 23-7-96 for the imported item "Mercedes Benz ATEGO 815/4820 RHD Chasis cab engine."
2. Interpretation of the conditions laid down in the notification for availing customs duty exemption for scientific and technical instruments.

Issue 1: Denial of Benefit of Notification:
The appeal arose from the denial of the appellant's claim for the benefit of notification No. 51/96 for the imported item "Mercedes Benz ATEGO 815/4820 RHD Chasis cab engine." The denial was based on the ground that the item was considered a mobile operation unit/hospital excluded from the notification. The appellant contended that the benefit was available to public funded research institutions or universities for importing scientific instruments, apparatus, equipment, accessories, parts, consumables, etc. The conditions required the importer to be registered with the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and produce necessary certificates at the time of importation.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification Conditions:
The appellant argued that they had satisfied the terms of the notification by producing certificates from an officer of an institution registered with the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. They presented a certificate from the Adviser, Department of Science and Industrial Research, certifying their registration for availing customs duty exemption. The appellant highlighted a previous judgment where similar benefits were granted for a different item under a related notification. The appellant emphasized that the imported vehicle was used exclusively for research purposes by students of a Medical College, collecting data and conducting research related to cataract eye surgeries.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and records carefully. It noted that the item in question was used by medical students for research purposes, collecting data from ethnic groups. The Commissioner had denied the benefit, considering the item as a mobile eye surgery unit used for hospital operations on wheels. However, the Tribunal found that the item was primarily utilized for research purposes, not as a mobile hospital. The definition of "hospital" in the notification did not encompass a single mobile unit used for research. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where similar benefits were granted under a related notification, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the terms of the notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellants had satisfied the terms of the notification and were eligible for the benefit. The impugned order denying the benefit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.