9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, the item is admitted to be falling under Chapter Heading 9018 and the exemption in question is applicable to such goods. Whether the item which is specified in a Tariff Entry can be considered to be part of another item for the purpose of an exemption notification - Held that:- In our prima facie view, ' Atraumatic Needle (Eyeless)' is a part required for manufacturing 'needled sutures'. On a perusal of the different entries in the said notification it is seen that wherever there is an intention to restrict the scope of exemption to specified parts it is done by specifying the classification of the goods - In this case the impugned goods satisfy such condition - Stay granted. - E/493/2012 - MISC ORDER NO.40148/2013 - Dated:- 9-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Needles - (Eyeless) under Central Excise Tariff Item 9018 9019 was wrong and it should have been classified under CTI 9018 3210. However, this issue is not very crucial for deciding the dispute on hand because the exemption notification specifies classification at four digit level only and not at eight digit level. Revenue's contention is essentially that ' Atraumatic Needles- (Eyeless)' is an item specified under Central Excise Tariff Item 9018 3210 and, therefore, it has to be treated as a 'complete product' and it cannot be treated as 'part of any other item' and that the Exemption Notification cited above will apply only to 'part and accessories of goods' falling under Chapter Heading 9018 or 9019. At this stage, it is also brought to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at exemption cannot be given to them. 6. We have considered the arguments of both sides. For extending the benefit of Exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE, dated 01.03.2006 (S.No.59 of the Table to the Notification), three issues are to be decided. The first issue is the 'classification of the product' being cleared from the factory of the appellant. Second issue is the classification of 'needled sutures' in the manufacture of which the impugned item is used and the third issue is whether the impugned goods can be considered as 'part of needled sutures'. 7. Prima facie, the classification adopted by the applicant at eight digit level for ' Atraumatic Needles - (Eyeless)', is 9018 9019, is wrong and the correct classification appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
