2019 (10) TMI 425 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002 Cus. dated 1.3.2002 as amended and N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - Import of anesthesia ventilatory system - Department observed that the goods were anesthesia machines with ventilation facility and therefore, are not eligible to exemption - HELD THAT - The Bench in the case of M/S. DATEX OHMEDA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) 2018 (8) TMI 908 - CESTAT BANGALORE has held that As long as, they are ventilators and used with Anesthesia Systems, exemption should be available. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the imported anesthesia ventilatory system is eligible for exemption under specific notifications.
- Interpretation of the term "ventilator used with anesthesia apparatus" in the context of exemption notifications.
- Application of expert opinions and previous case laws in determining eligibility for exemption.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of an anesthesia ventilatory system by M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. who claimed exemption under Notification No.21/2002 Cus. and Notification No.6/2006-CE. The Department contended that the goods were anesthesia machines with ventilation facility, thus not qualifying for the exemption.

2. The appellant argued that the imported system was a ventilator used for ventilating patients during anesthesia, supported by expert opinions from medical societies. They claimed that the equipment had composite functions, making it eligible for exemption. The appellant also cited relevant case laws in their favor.

3. The Commissioner (A) upheld the assessment order, stating that the notifications provided concession for goods described as "ventilator used with anesthesia apparatus." The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal challenging the assessment order.

4. Upon hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra. Citing previous judgments, including Datex Ohmeda India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the imported equipment was essentially an anesthesia system with a ventilator component. The Tribunal emphasized that the ventilator was an integral part of the anesthesia system, meeting the requirements for exemption.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the analysis that the impugned equipment was designed as an anesthesia system with a ventilator to meet patient needs. The Tribunal highlighted that the equipment passed the test of being a ventilator used with an anesthesia machine, aligning with the interpretation of the relevant notifications. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in interpreting exemption notifications and applying expert opinions and precedents to determine eligibility for exemptions in the context of imported medical equipment.