9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 23/98 regarding the eligibility for benefits. 2. Reliance on previous tribunal judgments in similar matters. 3. Consideration of expert certificates and hospital certificates. 4. Application of exemption benefits when an instrument serves multiple functions. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 23/98 to determine the eligibility for benefits. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the imported screen with CCD camera was meant for fitting with synoscopy, making it eligible for the benefits under the said notification. This decision was based on a thorough examination of the catalogue and certificates issued by ENT specialists and hospitals confirming the intended use of the imported item for synoscopy. 2. The respondents in this case relied on a previous tribunal judgment in the matter of M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, where it was held that a CCD camera imported for synoscopy purposes was eligible for the benefits under the notification. The Tribunal found this reliance valid and in line with the decision rendered in the referenced case, thus supporting the eligibility of the imported item for the benefits in question. 3. Expert certificates and hospital certificates played a crucial role in the decision-making process. The certificates issued by ENT specialists and hospitals like Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, and Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, were instrumental in establishing the purpose of the imported item for synoscopy. These certificates were considered alongside the catalogue to affirm the intended use of the item, further strengthening the case for granting the benefits under the notification. 4. The final issue addressed was the application of exemption benefits when an instrument serves multiple functions. Citing the judgment in the case of M/s. Escorts India Equipment Co., it was noted that exemption benefits should not be denied solely based on an instrument having functions beyond those indicated in the notification. In this case, the CCD camera could be utilized for both synoscopy and endoscopy, as supported by literature and expert certificates, leading to the conclusion that the benefits should indeed be granted. The decision was further reinforced by the evidences presented and the citations relied upon by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the party, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the appeal filed by the department.
|
