2024 (1) TMI 735 - AT - Customs

Benefit of concessional rate of duty - parts and accessories of medical equipment - Sl.No. 82 of List No. 37 of the N/N. 21/02 Cus. dated 01.03.2002 and Sl. No.61(b) of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - denial of benefit on the ground that the imported goods staplers were used for stapling the operated parts of the body after completion of endoscopic/laparoscopic surgery - HELD THAT - The Revenue has not produced any evidence to counter the experts opinion and based on the experts opinion, it is very clear these are used for surgical procedures including for laparoscopy / endoscopic surgeries. As per HSN under chapter 9018 which is meant for instruments and appliances for human medicine or surgery includes surgical staplers for inserting staplers to close the wounds. Whether they are eligible for the benefit of the notification as per Sl. No.363(B) as accessories of List 37 of the Notification No.21/2002-Cus.? - HELD THAT - The expert s opinions as recorded by the authorities clearly show that these items auto suture products are essential for Endoscopic/Laparoscopic equipment and this fact is not disputed. As rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals), the fact that they are multifunctional units will not make them ineligible as long as they are found to be accessories for the items list at Sl. No.22/82 of List 37 and Sl. No.61(b) of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The Revenue has not placed anything on record to disprove the same. In view of the above, there are no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is upheld and appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The classification of imported goods as parts and accessories of medical equipment for customs duty exemption.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Heading 9018 9099 for duty exemption
The respondent imported goods for endoscopic/laparoscopic surgeries seeking concessional duty rate under a specific Notification. The assessing officer denied the benefit, stating the goods were used for stapling body parts post-surgery. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit after expert opinions confirmed the goods' essential role in enhancing surgical performance. The Revenue appealed, claiming the goods were surgical tools, not accessories, and the Notification should be strictly interpreted.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the exemption Notification
The Revenue argued that the goods did not qualify as accessories under the Notification, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation. Citing legal precedents, the Authorised Representative supported the Revenue's stance. The Original Authority verified the goods' usage and expert opinions, concluding that the goods were essential for surgical procedures, including laparoscopy/endoscopy. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit based on expert opinions and the goods' role in surgical procedures.

Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the essential role of the imported goods in endoscopic/laparoscopic surgeries. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Revenue to refute the expert opinions. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the duty exemption for the imported goods used in surgical procedures.

Note: The judgment was pronounced by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE with specific reference to the case and legal arguments presented therein.