9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts manufactured by the appellant, namely, orthopaedic implants like hip joints, screes, (sic) plates, nails etc. used in joints, broken bones during orthopaedic operations. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs. 95,972.10 was confirmed leading to the present appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted by Shri S.V. Nankani, learned Advocate that they had filed technical information before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim that the goods in question fell within the scope of the expression used in the subject exemption notification but the same had not been considered while passing the order. The Additional Collector, it was contended, had taken a narrow view that rehabilitation aids for the handicapped would only e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would he be able to rehabilitate himself and function under near normal circumstances. It was also pointed out by him that the dispute relates to a small period viz. July 1986 to October 1986 and both before this period as well as afterwards, the same products were being extended the benefit of exemption for duty. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed and orders set aside. 2. Opposing the arguments by the learned Counsel, Shri S. Numthuk, learned DR submitted that the items covered in the exemption notification were artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicaps. He stated that the subject items are not artificial limbs as that would refer to the complete limb itself like hand or arm or leg or foot and not certain implants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that these implants satisfy the description given in the exemption notification. There is no denial of the said opinion from the technical stand point in the impugned order. We are inclined to accept these opinions and hold that the Additional Collector erred in rejecting the same for denying the benefit of exemption. In a somewhat similar issue dealt with in Collector of Customs, Madras v. Vishal Surgical Equipment reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) it was observed by the Tribunal that against the technical literature and the certificate issued from experts produced by the assessee, Revenue had not led any contrary evidence in support of the claim that the item was not an orthopaedic appliance. A similar approach would be jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
