9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 695 - SC - CustomsTariff Classification - Whether Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Fluid (CAPD fluid) is medical equipment which attracts nil rate of custom duty - Held that - On going through the list 29 we find that in the said list at serial No.46 CAPD fluid is specifically mentioned. It would, thus, clearly fall within the aforesaid nomenclature, namely, medical equipment and that is no duty was to be paid on the import of this equipment. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
Whether Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Fluid (CAPD fluid) qualifies as medical equipment attracting nil rate of custom duty. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether CAPD fluid should be considered as medical equipment subject to a nil rate of custom duty. The Departmental representative had already conceded to this position before the Tribunal. The Court observed that CAPD fluid is explicitly included in the list of medical equipment under Chapter Heading 90. The relevant entry in the list categorically mentions "The following goods namely (A) Medical Equipment" attracting a nil rate of duty. Furthermore, upon examining list 29, the Court noted that CAPD fluid is specifically listed at serial No.46, confirming its classification as medical equipment. Consequently, the Court concluded that no duty was payable on the import of CAPD fluid. As a result, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit. Additionally, the Court ruled that the amount deposited by the respondent was not eligible for a refund. This decision was made in light of the conclusion that CAPD fluid falls under the category of medical equipment attracting a nil rate of custom duty. The judgment emphasizes the specific inclusion of CAPD fluid in the list of medical equipment, reinforcing the exemption from duty payment on its import. The Court's analysis focused on the clear classification of CAPD fluid as medical equipment within the relevant customs framework, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and the decision not to refund the deposited amount.
|
