1997 (11) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification for artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for handicaps.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the order-in-original by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, denying full exemption from duty under Notification 71/86-C.E. for orthopaedic implants like hip joints, screws, plates, nails, used in orthopaedic operations. The duty demand of Rs. 95,972.10 was confirmed, leading to the appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the items in question fell within the scope of the exemption notification. Technical information was submitted to support the claim that orthopaedic implants are essential aids in rehabilitating people with musculoskeletal disabilities. The appellant contended that the items were necessary for restoring injured persons to normal function and should be considered as rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. Certificates from experts and the Directorate General of Health Services were presented to support this argument. The appellant emphasized that the disputed period was small and that the items had been granted exemption both before and after the period in question.

In opposition, the Respondent argued that the exemption notification covered artificial limbs and specific rehabilitation aids for the handicapped, which did not include orthopaedic implants. The Respondent contended that artificial limbs referred to complete limbs like arms or legs, while rehabilitation aids were devices like crutches or hearing aids, not implants used during surgery. The Respondent also pointed out an amendment to the exemption notification, adding parts and components of artificial limbs and aids, which implied that items like orthopaedic implants were not covered during the relevant period.

After considering the arguments and technical information provided, the Tribunal found that the orthopaedic implants satisfied the description in the exemption notification. The technical opinions from experts supported the appellant's claim that the items should be considered as rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. The Tribunal noted that there was no contradictory evidence presented by the Revenue to dispute the technical certificates. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal held that the expert opinions presented by the appellant should be accepted, and the appeal was allowed. The impugned order was set aside, granting the benefit of exemption from duty to the orthopaedic implants.