2015 (11) TMI 1596 - AT - Customs

Denial of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus - Held that - only 3 mirror lens was eligible for exemption, the impugned goods are clearly not covered within the scope of Sr. No. 9 of List 30 of the said exemption notification - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification No. 17/2001-Cus regarding eligibility of imported items for exemption benefits.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal that upheld the denial of benefits under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus for items imported by the appellant, namely single mirror gonio lens and 4 mirror mini gonio lens. The appellant argued that the goods were eligible for exemption and submitted a supporting letter from Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Center for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi. However, during the hearing, there was no representation from the appellant. The Departmental Representative (DR) emphasized the need for strict interpretation of exemption notifications.

Upon consideration, the tribunal noted that Sr. No. 9 of the notification specifically mentioned exemptions for certain types of lenses like gonioscope, 3 mirror lens, special lenses for laser delivery, etc. The impugned goods, single mirror gonio lens, and 4 mirror mini gonio lens were not explicitly included in the exemption list. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal highlighted the principle that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, with any doubts resolved in favor of the department. The letter from Dr. Rajendra Prasad merely identified the lenses as gonioscopes for glaucoma without establishing their eligibility under the exemption notification.

Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.