1999 (12) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for duty-free clearance under Customs Notification No. 55/95.
2. Validity of the Assistant Commissioner's assessment and subsequent review.
3. Interpretation of the term "cannula" and its application to the imported item.
4. Relevance of expert opinions and previous judgments.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Duty-Free Clearance:
The respondents filed a Bill of Entry for "Top Brand Scalp vein infusion sets" and claimed duty-free clearance u/s Sl. No. 34 of Customs Notification No. 55/95. They supported their claim with a letter from the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) stating the items were covered under the notification. The Assistant Commissioner initially assessed the Bill of Entry based on DGHS's clarification but later issued a show cause notice demanding duty, citing a contradictory opinion from Dr. P. Joseph Sathiananthan.

2. Validity of the Assistant Commissioner's Assessment:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the importers' plea, noting that the initial DGHS opinion was based on an Expert Committee's views. The Commissioner questioned the validity of the subsequent DGHS opinion, which lacked reasons for withdrawing the earlier clarification. The Assistant Commissioner was criticized for referring the matter again after reaching a reasonable conclusion and for not finalizing the assessment based on the initial DGHS opinion.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Cannula":
The Revenue argued that the imported item did not satisfy the description in Sl. No. 34 of Notification No. 55/95, as it was not used for "aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels." The respondents contended that the term "blood vessel" should be read independently and that the item was used in veins and blood vessels for intravenous purposes. The Tribunal found that the item met the definition of "cannula" and was used in blood vessels, thus satisfying the notification's requirements.

4. Relevance of Expert Opinions and Previous Judgments:
The Tribunal considered various expert opinions from both sides. The majority of experts supported the respondents' claim that the item was a cannula used in blood vessels. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which dealt with a different notification and context. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence favored the respondents and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to grant the benefit of the notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the imported scalp vein infusion sets were eligible for duty-free clearance under Sl. No. 34 of Customs Notification No. 55/95. The Tribunal emphasized that the item met the definition of "cannula" and was used in blood vessels, and that the initial DGHS opinion should be upheld.