2004 (5) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Exemption eligibility of defibrillators under specific notifications
- Interpretation of defibrillator classification for internal use
- Dispute on limitation issue

Exemption Eligibility of Defibrillators:
The case involved a dispute regarding whether defibrillators manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The appellant produced defibrillators without Recorder and with Recorder, classified under sub-heading No. 9018.00. The Superintendent of Central Excise directed the appellant to revise their classification declaration, leading to a show cause notice proposing duty demand. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, resulting in the order under challenge in the present appeal.

Interpretation of Defibrillator Classification for Internal Use:
The contention revolved around the interpretation of the notifications granting exemption to defibrillators. The appellant argued that their product, when fitted with internal paddles, could be used as an internal defibrillator during heart surgery, thus meeting the criteria for exemption under Notification Nos. 8/96 and 4/97. However, the adjudicating authority opined that defibrillators for internal use, along with pacemakers, included implanted internal defibrillators, not external defibrillators with optional internal paddles. The Revenue's argument was supported by references to internal cardioverter defibrillators and expert opinions distinguishing implantable defibrillators from internal defibrillators used during surgery.

Dispute on Limitation Issue:
The appellant raised a limitation issue, contending that there was no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade duty payment. While the Member (Judicial) acknowledged the merit of this argument, the issue of limitation was not explicitly addressed by the Member (Technical). As a result, the President of the Tribunal refrained from ruling on the limitation matter and directed the appeal to be placed before the Regular Bench for further consideration and appropriate orders.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the intricate details of the classification of defibrillators for exemption eligibility under specific notifications, emphasizing the distinction between internal and external use and the significance of optional accessories like internal paddles. The interpretation of the notifications, expert opinions, and the limitation issue were thoroughly analyzed to arrive at a decision regarding the appellant's entitlement to exemption benefits.