2008 (2) TMI 902 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the exemption provided in the notification covers cannulae for distant parts of veins and blood vessels as well or it is limited to cannulae for aorta and vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels, and whether term blood vessels has to be read separately?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notifications regarding cannulae under Notifications No. 6/02-CE and 21/02-Cus.
2. Whether exemption covers cannulae for distant parts of veins and blood vessels.
3. Need for reconsideration of the decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd.
4. Granting of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the interpretation of exemption notifications under Notifications No. 6/02-CE and 21/02-Cus regarding cannulae. The dispute centered around whether the exemption covered cannulae for distant parts of veins and blood vessels or was limited to specific types. The term 'blood vessels' was a key point of contention, with reference made to a previous decision in the case of Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. The Tribunal decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for a decision on this specific point, indicating the need for further clarification on the scope of the exemption.

2. In light of the judgment in the case of Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. favoring the appellant and considering a similar product in the case of M/s. Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd., where a waiver had been granted, the Tribunal granted full waiver of pre-deposit in respect of duty and penalty. The decision to grant waiver and stay recovery of duty and penalty until the appeal's disposal was based on the favorable judgments in related cases, ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of legal principles.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the question at hand was not conclusively settled by the decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. Heavy reliance had been placed on this decision by the appellant, necessitating a re-examination of the issue. The Tribunal's decision to refer the matter to a Larger Bench indicated a commitment to thorough deliberation and a desire for a comprehensive resolution to the legal question at hand, showcasing a dedication to upholding legal clarity and consistency in judgments.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments from both sides, decided to grant a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery of duty and penalty until the appeal's final disposal. This decision was made in consideration of the favorable judgments in related cases and aimed at ensuring fairness and justice in the proceedings. The Tribunal's approach in granting the waiver demonstrated a balanced and equitable application of legal principles, safeguarding the rights of the appellant during the course of the appeal process.