2014 (7) TMI 1070 - HC - Customs

Import of accessory of medical equipments - Denial of benefit of customs Notification No.23 of 1998 - Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding the impugned goods, i.e, Micropipettes, as an accessory of the Auto Analyser, when the impugned goods has been imported independently, invoiced independently and also charged separately as per that invoice violating the provisions of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 - Held that - Original Authority has not thought it fit to discuss the ruling of the Supreme Court. In any event, it is not the case of the Department that the goods imported though may be used as a general purpose Pippet, is not an accessory of a medical equipment. Once it qualifies to be an accessory of a medical equipment figuring in List 22, automatically the benefit of exemption will flow therefrom. If the finding of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the Tribunal is accepted, then the importer will have the benefit of exemption. The stand of the Department that the goods have imported independently and invoiced independently and therefore, it should not be treated as an accessory of Auto Analyser, does not merit consideration at this point of time, as we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken note of the fact that the purchase order reflects the pippet as accessory of Auto Analyser - on the basis of the Customs Notification No.23 of 1998, which clearly gives exemption for accessories of medical equipments listed therein, first substantial question of law against the Revenue. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding the impugned goods, i.e. Micro pipettes, as an accessory of the Auto Analyser when even the manufacturer s catalogue of the impugned goods also does not mention the impugned goods as an accessory of the Auto Analyser and instead of the same, it was mentioned as a General Puprose pipettor for the accurate and precise sampling and dispensing of the liquid volumes - Held that - claim of statements made in the catalogue or brochures is not conclusive for the purpose of assessment, if the actual position is shown to be otherwise. This decision is binding on the Department. Even otherwise, in view of the finding which we have rendered in so far as the first substantial question of law placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries V. State of Andra Pradesh reported in 1976 (3) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , we find no justification to discredit the claim of the first respondent/importer that the goods imported is nothing but an accessory of a medical equipment - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding classification of imported goods.
2. Determination of whether the imported Micropipettes are accessories of the Auto Analyser.
3. Application of Customs Notification No.23 of 1998 for duty exemption.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial questions of law included whether the Micropipettes were correctly classified as accessories of the Auto Analyser, considering they were imported independently and invoiced separately, violating the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963.

2. The importer claimed duty-free clearance under Customs Notification No.23 of 1998, stating that the Micropipettes were accessories of the Auto Analyser. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this, classifying the goods as general purpose pipettors under Chapter Heading 9026.80, denying the duty exemption.

3. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, considering the Micropipettes as accessories enhancing the main function of the Auto Analyser. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the goods satisfied the Accessories (Condition) Rules 1963 and were eligible for duty exemption under the Notification.

4. The High Court agreed with the lower authorities, citing the Supreme Court's definition of 'accessory' and the broader interpretation of accessories for medical equipment under Customs Notification No.23 of 1998. The Court held that the Micropipettes were indeed accessories of the Auto Analyser, granting the benefit of duty exemption.

5. The Court also addressed the argument based on the manufacturer's catalogue, noting that the actual use of the goods as accessories was more relevant than the catalogue description. Relying on precedent and the specific facts of the case, the Court upheld the decision to treat the Micropipettes as accessories, confirming the Tribunal's order and dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.