2017 (3) TMI 349 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 208/81 - import of Lifesaving Equipment viz. Infusion Solution Administration Sets - whether the goods are covered under Sl. Nos. 19, 42 or 44 of Part B of the Notification or not? - Held that - The lifesaving equipment that was imported is totally out of scope of either entry 19, 42 or 44 of Part B to the notification for the reason that there was no set of equipment intended to enjoy the exemption - the burden of proving eligibility to the exemption lies on the claimant. Appellant failed to show that Lifesaving Equipment viz. Infusion Solution Administration Sets and Lifesaving equipment viz. Intravenous Cannulae and tubing for long term use (Infusion Solution Administration Sets) satisfy the condition of exemption. In absence of discharge of burden of proof by the appellant, there is no scope to consider its claim of exemption - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 208/1981 -Cus. dated 22.9.1981 for exemption eligibility based on the classification of imported goods under SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appellant's Representation:
The appellant requested the disposal of the appeal on the basis of written submissions due to the inability to travel for a hearing post-surgery. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their case.

2. Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the imported goods fall under SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44 of the Notification, thereby qualifying for the exemption provided.

3. Commissioner's Examination:
The Commissioner examined whether the goods imported matched the criteria of SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44 of the Notification. The Commissioner found discrepancies between the goods imported and the descriptions under the Notification.

4. Appellate Authority's Analysis:
The Appellate Authority extensively discussed the goods in question based on the Bill of Entry details. The authority framed the issue of whether the imported goods fell under SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44 of the Notification.

5. Decision on Exemption Claims:
The Appellate Authority concluded that the imported goods did not align with the descriptions under SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44 of the Notification. The Commissioner's findings were upheld based on the lack of evidence provided by the appellant to support exemption eligibility.

6. Burden of Proof and Dismissal:
The judgment highlighted that the burden of proving eligibility for exemption rested with the appellant. As the appellant failed to demonstrate that the imported goods met the conditions for exemption, the claim was dismissed. The order of the Commissioner was upheld due to the appellant's failure to satisfy the requirements for exemption.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal based on the appellant's inability to prove that the imported goods qualified for exemption under SI. Nos. 19, 42, or 44 of the Notification No. 208/1981 -Cus. The decision was made after a thorough analysis of the goods, the Notification criteria, and the lack of supporting evidence from the appellant.