9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000 for exemption eligibility of 'Diode Laser' in dermatology.
Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the allowance of benefit under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000 to a 'Diode Laser' imported by the respondent. The original authority denied the exemption as 'Diode Laser' was used in dermatology, unlike 'Yag Laser' and 'Excimer Laser' used in ophthalmology, which were listed alongside it. The Commissioner (A) held that the notification should be strictly interpreted based on the language used, and 'Diode Laser' was entitled to exemption as medical equipment. 2. The Revenue contested the Commissioner's order citing a CBEC letter clarifying that the items listed under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000 were primarily used in ophthalmology. The Revenue argued that the benefit was wrongly extended to the 'Diode Laser' in question, which was not primarily used in ophthalmology. 3. The Respondent's counsel argued that the notification should be strictly interpreted without reading into its intent. Citing a Tribunal decision, it was emphasized that the benefit of the notification could not be denied to the 'Diode Laser,' which was clearly medical equipment used in dermatology. The counsel contended that the impugned order should be upheld. 4. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that the 'Diode Laser' was used in ophthalmology, as claimed. The CBEC letter referred to by the Revenue clarified a previous notification and did not list 'Diode Laser' under ophthalmology equipment. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that 'Diode Laser' was entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000, irrespective of its use in ophthalmology. Both the Revenue's appeal and the cross-appeal by the assessee were rejected as they did not align with the issues raised in the original appeal.
|
