9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Notification 208/81-Cus. The Collector held that they are entitled to benefit of notification and has also observed that the lower authorities have not given any specific findings as to why the goods in question cannot be considered as intravenous cannulae with tubing for longer terms use. In this regard, he has also relied in his earlier ruling decided by order in appeal C3/461 and 462/90 and also C3/952, 1211, 1091 and 951/90 in respect of appeals filed by M/s. Bharathi Surgicals, Shah Trading Corpn., and South India Surgical Co. Ltd. wherein he has held the CEGAT's decision. It is contended in this appeal by the Revenue that the importer had sought clearance of "Scalp Vein Sets" and were assessed as "Infusion Sets" under tariff Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms use. Hence it is stated that the word "intravenous .......for long term use" is generic in nature and not specific. Hence it is stated that they are not entitled for benefit of notification as both the items viz. Butterfly needle G; and infusion sets and intravenous canulae and tubing are different and distinct from each other. 2. The importers by their cross appeals have stated that their goods are intravenous canulae and tubing for long term use and they are covered by the terms of the notification. In this regard they relied on the expert opinion of the DGHS vide their letter No. Z.36-7/86-MG, dated 12-2-1986 wherein it has been expressed that out-let venous sets are marketed as "Scalp Vein Sets" and are used for safe, sterile v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (37) E.L.T. 58 (T). 2. M/s. Lab India Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 438 (T). 3. M/s. Lifeline Systems v. Collector of Customs - 1988 (33) E.L.T 699 (T). 4. M/s. Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 249 (Cal.). 3. We have heard ld. DR in the matter. Ld. DR submits that the issue is covered in revenue's favour in terms of the Calcutta High Court judgment falling within the category of intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use as stated in the case of Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and not on those terms on which the benefit has been given by the said Court. She also relies on the judgments rendered in the case of Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1992 (5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained by Calcutta High Court in the context of Notification 208/81-Cus. in the case of Trio Marketing (Supra). We have looked into the citations cited by the importer wherein relief has been granted in the cited cases. However, in order to distinguish the cases relied by the importer to that of revenue, we are required to examine the original documents. In this case we notice that revenue has not produced the basic documents like Bill of Entry & Catalogue. We are not in a position to know in what condition goods were imported whether together or separately as noted by the Tribunal. We are also not aware as to the fate of the appeals filed by the revenue against similar orders passed in the case of Bharathi Surgical, Shah Trading Corp. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
