9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 37 and Item No.22 thereof). The notification granted exemption to "Ostomy products (appliances) for managing colostomy, Illcostomy, ureterostomy, Illeal Conduit Urostomy stoma cases such as bags, belts, adhesives, seals, or discs or Rolls adhesives remover, skin barrier microporous surgical tapes, bag closing clamps karaya seals paste or powder, irrigation sets, plastic or rubber face plates, flanges, male or female urinary incontinence sets, skin gels, in parts or sets". In respect of 4 Bills of Entry, the appellant conceded their duty liability and paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. which stands appropriated towards the impugned demand. In respect of the rest of the Bills of Entry, the appellant insisted on grant of exemption under the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 108 of the Act, that the imported goods were misclassified and misdeclared. The learned JC (AR) submits that the relevant entry of the exemption notification needs to be strictly interpreted and, if so done, it can be found that the claim of the importer has not been substantiated. In this connection, support is claimed from Commissioner vs Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd . - 2009 (236) ELT 625 (SC) and a few other decisions of the apex court. The learned JC (AR) has also reiterated certain findings of the Commissioner. 4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The appellant described the goods as "Transparent Skin Barrier Microporous Surgical Tapes" in some of the Bills of Entry and "Skin Barrier Microporous Surgical T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. The department ought to have at least sought expert opinion on the technical aspects involved in this case. If is against this background that we are looking at the stay orders produced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Goods which were declared as "Skin Barrier Microporous Surgical Tapes" were the subject-matter of those cases also. Waiver and stay were granted in those cases. 5. The learned JC (AR) has fervently argued for strict interpretation of the provisions of the exemption notification. Where the department is insisting on such interpretation of the relevant entry in the notification, they should have taken the requisite minimal steps to show that the goods in question were not covered by such entry. 6. In this scenar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
