2019 (9) TMI 1028 - AT - Customs

Benefit of exemption - ventilators used with anesthesia equipment - Department contended that the impugned goods were anesthesia workstation and not ventilators as claimed by the appellants and hence the benefit of the Notification was not available - HELD THAT - The exemption is applicable to standalone ventilators and ventilators used with anesthesia apparatus. We find that the technical opinion given by the experts in the field indicated that the impugned machines that the ventilators are inbuilt in the anesthesia station and can provide artificial ventilation - When the Notification provides exemption to ventilators, the same shall be applicable in spite of the fact that whether or not they have additional features. It is not mentioned in the Notification that exemption is available to only ventilators. Such a constrictive interpretation would defeat the purpose of the exemption given in the Notification. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 21/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002 to imported medical equipment.
2. Classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 90189041.
3. Interpretation of the term "ventilators used with anesthesia equipment" in the Notification.
4. Consideration of expert opinions in support of the case.
5. Application of previous judicial precedents in similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The appellants imported medical equipment and claimed exemption under Notification No. 21/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The Department contended that the goods were anesthesia workstations, not ventilators, and demanded a differential duty. The original authority confirmed this view, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellants argued that the imported equipment had integrated functions of anesthesia delivery and ventilation, making them eligible for the exemption. They cited expert opinions and relevant judicial decisions to support their case.

3. The Tribunal examined the Notification and found that it applied to standalone ventilators and those used with anesthesia apparatus. Expert opinions confirmed that the imported machines could provide artificial ventilation, meeting the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that a restrictive interpretation would defeat the purpose of the exemption.

4. Relying on judicial precedents such as the Datex Ohmeda case, the Tribunal held that technological advancements should not hinder the benefit entitlement. Citing relevant case laws, including CC (I & G), New Delhi Vs Datex Ohmeda (India) Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the Notification, expert opinions, and legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just interpretation of the law in line with previous judgments.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the rationale behind their decision, providing a thorough understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.