1997 (10) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1st March, 1988 denied to the appellants.
- Whether the imported goods are amenable to dental work.
- Interpretation of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 regarding concessional rate of duty for dental equipment.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the Order-in-Appeal denying them the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1st March, 1988, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The dispute arose from the import of "Fibre Optic Executor Light Cure System Gun Style 230 Volts with Kit," where the benefit was denied due to lack of evidence showing the equipment's suitability for dental work.

The appellants contended that the goods were described as dental equipment in the catalogue, indicating their intended use for dental work. The respondents, however, stood by the lower authorities' decision. The notification in question, No. 65/88-CUSTOMS, exempts medical equipment falling within specified chapters from certain duties, including Fibre optic light equipment with attachments for dental work.

Upon reviewing the catalogue and manufacturer's description, it was evident that the imported goods were indeed designed for dental work. The manufacturer, Pro-Den, specialized in supplying the dental profession with light curing systems, further confirming the goods' intended purpose for dental applications.

Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, as the imported goods were clearly meant for dental work. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the appellants entitled to any consequential benefits, subject to the principle of unjust enrichment as per the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the correct interpretation of the notification granting concessional duty rates for dental equipment, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the clear indication that the imported goods were intended for dental work, as evidenced by the catalogue and manufacturer's specialization in dental products.