9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Endoscope Stents for exemption from duty under Sl. No. 348B of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. 2. Determination of whether Stents are considered accessories of endoscopes. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of Endoscope Stents for exemption from duty under Sl. No. 348B of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. The primary issue raised in the appeal is whether various types of Endoscope Stents, such as Uretheral Stents, Percuflex Stent, Pigtail Stent, Wall Stent, Biliary Stent, and Biliary drawn Stent, qualify for exemption from duty under Sl. No. 348B of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. The notification covers medical equipment and accessories specified in List 29, including fibre optic endoscopes. The impugned order initially held that the Stents do not fall under the category of accessories for endoscopes and are thus not eligible for the exemption. The order emphasized that while endoscopes can function without stents, stents require endoscopes for proper placement, indicating that stents are not necessary for the functioning of endoscopes. Issue 2: Determination of whether Stents are considered accessories of endoscopes. The appellants argued that the Commissioner's findings were erroneous. They relied on various definitions and references, including the "Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health," which lists stents as accessories used with endoscopes for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. They also cited product literature and medical articles that describe the use of stents in conjunction with endoscopes for treatment purposes, such as the deployment of stents through the biopsy channel of therapeutic upper endoscopes or duodenoscopes. The appellants further argued that the observation that stents are not always attached to endoscopes and do not enhance the efficiency or functioning of endoscopes is irrelevant. They contended that accessories do not need to be attached all the time to the main equipment and that the separate import of endoscopes and stents should not determine their status as accessories. The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by the appellants. It noted that endoscopes perform both diagnostic and treatment functions, with separate channels for inserting diagnostic cameras and treatment items. The Tribunal found that stents are essential for endoscopic treatment and enhance the effectiveness of endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that stents should be treated as accessories to endoscopes. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision in the case of Sri Ram Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, where it was held that catheters are accessories of haemodylisers. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning to conclude that stents are accessories of endoscopes, as they are essential for the treatment functions of endoscopes. Conclusion: In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the stents in question are eligible for exemption as accessories under Notification No. 17/2001. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
