9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1791 - AT - CustomsImport of Spinal Needle - duty free import or not - Benefit of exemption under List 41 under Serial No. 370 N/No. 21/2002 and 6/2006-C.E., Serial No. 68 - Medical equipment (excluding Foley Balloon Catheters) and other goods, specified in List 37 - Accessories of the medical equipment - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgement in the case of Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. Customs, Delhi III 2015 (6) TMI 335 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where the Tribunal has allowed the benefit to the imported item - The Revenue has preferred an appeal against this Order before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Therefore, this judgment is having a binding precedent. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Availability of benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 for duty-free import of Spinal Needles. 2. Interpretation of the term "spinal instruments" under the exemption notification. 3. Applicability of alternative exemption under Serial No. 33 of List No. 37. 4. Relevance of precedents set by previous judgments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Availability of Benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.: The appellant imported four consignments of Spinal Needles from Taiwan in March 2008 and claimed customs duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, and 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The customs authorities denied the exemption, stating that the imported Spinal Needles were not primarily meant for the disabled. The appellant contended that List 41 Serial No. 9 includes spinal instruments and there is no actual user condition attached to it. They argued that not all items in List 41 are meant for the disabled, and the Spinal Needles qualify for exemption independently. 2. Interpretation of the Term "Spinal Instruments": The appellant argued that the term "spinal instruments" should include Spinal Needles, as the notification does not specify that all items under List 41 are for the disabled. They emphasized that the notification is clear and does not require any external aid for interpretation. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously dismissed the appeal, expressing doubt whether Spinal Needles could be termed as spinal instruments based on internet research. The appellant argued that the term "spinal instrument" should be interpreted broadly to include Spinal Needles used in surgery, pain management, or fluid extraction for the spine. 3. Applicability of Alternative Exemption under Serial No. 33 of List No. 37: The appellant alternatively claimed that Spinal Needles qualify as "cannula for intra-corporal spaces" under Serial No. 33 of List No. 37, which includes "Disposable and non-disposable cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for intra-corporal spaces." They argued that Spinal Needles meet the definition of cannula and should qualify for exemption accordingly. The appellant provided evidence that Customs Authorities at Chennai had been releasing Spinal Needles with the benefit of the exemption notification under Serial No. 363. 4. Relevance of Precedents Set by Previous Judgments: The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including C.C.Ex., Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. and Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. & Customs, Delhi III, which interpreted similar entries in exemption notifications. In these cases, the Tribunal held that the term "blood vessels" should be read independently of the expression "for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins," and items meeting the definition of cannula were eligible for exemption. The Supreme Court had dismissed appeals against these judgments, making them binding precedents. The Tribunal concluded that the Spinal Needles imported by the appellant should be eligible for exemption under the same interpretation. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all appeals, granting the appellant the benefit of the exemption notification for the imported Spinal Needles. The judgment emphasized the binding nature of previous Tribunal decisions affirmed by the Supreme Court and the broad interpretation of terms in exemption notifications. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 9-10-2018.
|
