1997 (12) TMI 412 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of TV monitor for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus.

In the appeal, the main issue revolved around the eligibility of a TV monitor imported as an accessory to an angioscope for coronary angiography for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The respondents claimed that the TV monitor should be eligible for exemption as it was an essential part of the angioscope equipment covered under the notification. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, did not extend the benefit of the exemption to the TV monitor, leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

The Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the TV monitor, even if considered an accessory, was eligible for the duty concession under the notification. The matter was scheduled for a hearing, and despite sufficient notice given to the respondents, they did not appear. The appellate tribunal proceeded to address the case on its merits after hearing the Departmental Representative.

Upon examination of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., it was found that the exemption was granted to specified medical equipment, accessories, and spare parts listed in the table annexed to the notification. The table referred to medical equipment under sub-heading (C), with angioscope for coronary angiography mentioned at S. No. 104. Since the TV monitor was imported separately and not with the angioscope, it was deemed ineligible for the exemption under the said entry of the notification.

The tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification must be strictly construed, and the scope of exemption is limited to goods explicitly mentioned. The absence of specific mention of accessories under S. No. 104 meant that the TV monitor could not benefit from the exemption, despite its potential role as an essential accessory to the angioscope.

In disagreement with the view of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), who considered the TV monitor eligible for the duty concession, the tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and reinstated the original order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Madras. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.