9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, SDR and Shri H.C. Verma, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal, is whether M/s. Johri Digital Health Care Ltd. are eligible to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned S.D.R, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbly or assembly that contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of a piece of equipment without changing its basic functions; that the respondents, in their letter dated 8-5-2003, mentioned that the impugned goods are parts of their equipment while in their subsequent letter dated 19-5-2003, they have claimed that the impugned goods are used as accessories of the medical equipment and without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Stimulation System; that these items are accessories to the medical equipment; that medical equipment and accessories, thereof, attracted concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 363 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. whether they fall under Chapter 90 or any other Chapter of the Customs Tariff; that even if the impugned goods are classified under Chapter 85, benefit of Notification cannot be denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly given his finding in Order-in-Original dated 28-10-2003 that the Adjudicating Authority has nowhere discussed the reason as to why the Notification would not be applicable to the impugned goods. Even before us, the Revenue has not brought out any material on record to show that the impugned goods are not accessories of the medical equipme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
