2017 (2) TMI 46 - AT - Customs

Exemption under N/N. 208/1981-Cus. dated 22.9.1981 - Disposable Solution Infusion sets - whether the goods are covered under Sl. No. 42 of Part B of the Notification? - Held that - When the Bill of Entry is looked into that shows that the goods imported were lifesaving equipment namely intravenous cannulae and tubing for long time use - Disposable Solution Infusion sets. But Entry 42 (Part - B) deals with only disposable and non-disposable cannulae - The lifesaving equipment that was imported is totally out of scope of Entry 42 of Part B to the notification for the reason that there was no set of equipment intended to enjoy the exemption. It was only disposable and non-disposable cannulae that was the subject matter of exemption - sets of the intravenous cannulae and tubing are not meant for exemption. Burden of proof - Held that - burden of proving eligibility to the exemption lies totally on the claimant - In absence of discharge of burden of proof by the appellant there is no scope to consider its claim of to the exemption. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 208/1981-Cus. dated 22.9.1981 for exemption eligibility based on goods classification under Sl. No. 42 of Part B.

Analysis:
The Appellant, unable to engage an advocate, requested the disposal of appeals based on written submissions. The Appellant claimed exemption under Sl. No. 42 of the Notification for specific goods. The Tribunal had earlier directed the appellate authority to assess the goods' coverage under the said entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) was tasked with determining if the goods qualified for exemption under Serial 42 of Part B. The Commissioner noted the Tribunal's direction and examined whether the goods imported matched the description for exemption. He found the goods differed from those in previous judgments relied upon by the Appellant.

The Appellate Authority extensively discussed the imported goods, which included intravenous cannulae and tubing. The goods were assessed against the criteria of Sl. No. 42 Part B of the Notification. It was concluded that the imported goods did not fall within the specified entry as they were sets of equipment, not individual cannulae. The sets were deemed ineligible for exemption under the notification. The Revenue supported the appellate order, emphasizing the exclusion of the lifesaving equipment from the exemption provision.

Upon review, it was established that the imported goods, being lifesaving equipment, did not align with the requirements of Entry 42 of Part B. The Commissioner's decision was upheld as he correctly analyzed the issue and determined that the sets of intravenous cannulae and tubing were not eligible for exemption. The burden of proving exemption eligibility rested with the Appellant, who failed to demonstrate that the sets qualified for the exemption. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed due to the Appellant's inability to satisfy the exemption criteria, leading to the rejection of their claim.