2006 (4) TMI 307 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of impugned order regarding benefit of Notification 17/2001-Cus.
2. Classification of Cardiac Stent as an accessory to P.T.C.A. Catheter.
3. Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision regarding Stents as accessories.
4. Consideration of recent Notification specifying Cardiac Stent for duty exemption.
5. Dismissal of the department's application.

Issue 1: Stay of operation of impugned order regarding benefit of Notification 17/2001-Cus.
The department filed an application for stay of the impugned order granting the respondent the benefit of Notification 17/2001-Cus., which provided duty exemption for medical equipment and accessories. The dispute centered around whether the Cardiac Stent imported by the respondent qualified as an accessory to the P.T.C.A. Catheter, as claimed by the respondent but contested by the appellant.

Issue 2: Classification of Cardiac Stent as an accessory to P.T.C.A. Catheter.
The main contention was whether the Cardiac Stent should be considered an accessory to the P.T.C.A. Catheter, as argued by the respondent and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant disagreed, stating that since the Stent was not specified in the relevant list of accessories, it should not be granted the exemption.

Issue 3: Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision regarding Stents as accessories.
A previous Tribunal decision involving Stents being considered accessories to Endoscopes was cited, with both parties agreeing on this classification. The Tribunal reasoned that if Stents could be deemed accessories to Endoscopes, then the Cardiac Stent, used with the Catheter as a carrier and depositor, should also be considered an accessory to the Catheter.

Issue 4: Consideration of recent Notification specifying Cardiac Stent for duty exemption.
The respondent's representative presented a recent Notification specifically mentioning Cardiac Stents for duty exemption, further supporting the argument that the Stent should be classified as an accessory to the Catheter. This, along with the lack of opposing judicial authorities, led the Tribunal to maintain the impugned order until the appeal's final disposal.

Issue 5: Dismissal of the department's application.
After considering both parties' arguments and the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the department's application for a stay of the impugned order. The decision was based on the classification of the Cardiac Stent as an accessory to the P.T.C.A. Catheter and the absence of contrary judicial authorities cited by the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the case and provides a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision-making process and reasoning.