9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n medical equipments. In the present case, the appellants contended that X-ray generators imported were customized equipment used in Systec 1800 computerised topography scanner. The lower authority held that the X-ray generators are considered as equipment by themselves and they cannot be considered as parts of CT scanner. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) has given a finding that X-ray generators were necessary for the functioning of the CT Scanner and they can be treated as parts of CT scan system. However, he has drawn a distinction between the phrases Part of Medical Equipment and Part required for the manufacture of medical equipment. According to him, even though X-ray generator is a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consists of Inverter, HV Tank, Rotor Control Board, CPU, Power supply and is designed for supporting the X-ray tube mounted on the Gantry to produce X-ray s of the specified kV and mA (+60 kV and - 69kV and corresponding mA. 40 mA, 60 mA, 80 mA and 100 mA). This generator cannot be used for general purpose like generating voltage for house hold appliances or any other appliances because it is Custom made for the SYSTEC 18001 Computed Tomography Scanner. This generator works in a select Range of kV and mA specific to this particular CT Scanner. The type of circuitry inside makes its workable only for this CT Scanner. Only this generator can interface between CT 18001 Ganry, Operator console and Patient Table and ensure the X-rays are p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral purposes, we are of the view that the generator should be treated as part required for the manufacture of CT scan system. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CC, Kolkata v. Rupa and Co Ltd., 2004 (170) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) has held that goods required for manufacture of includes materials not directly used in the manufacture of resultant product but still required therein. The Tribunal in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. CC, Bombay have held that exemption notification is not deniable merely because such part may be a finished product, or a complete article by itself. The CEGAT in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd., v. CCE, Pune, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 475 (T) has held that part of machinery is one without which the particular machinery is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
