9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. is available to CVR (Cardiotomy/Venous Reservoir With filter) imported by M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. Analysis: The appellant argued that the imported oxygenator with an additional attachment of CVR is an improved model capable of performing the primary functions of oxygenation. They contended that the CVR is an integral part of the oxygenator and should be considered an accessory eligible for exemption under the Notification. Additionally, they claimed that the CVR could be seen as an accessory to the "Heart Lung Machine" mentioned in the Notification, which would make it eligible for the benefit under Serial No. 348. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the oxygenator and CVR are distinct products marketed separately by the foreign supplier. They presented evidence from the supplier's website showing the separate listings of "Oxygenator" and "CVR," indicating that they are not considered as one unit. The respondent also highlighted that the appellant failed to provide technical literature supporting the claim that CVR is an accessory to the oxygenator or the heart lung machine, thereby refuting the eligibility for the exemption. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Notification exempts medical equipment specified in List 29 and their accessories. Since CVR was not listed in List 29 and both lower authorities considered CVR and oxygenator as separate products, the appellant's arguments were not accepted. The Commissioner and Adjudicating Authority found that the oxygenator functions solely for gas exchange, while the CVR serves a different purpose related to blood, further supporting the distinction between the two products. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence or technical literature establishing the CVR as an accessory to the oxygenator or heart lung machine, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.
|
