9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 208/81 dated 22-9-81 under Sl. No. 22A of Schedule 'B' of the said notification. The benefit of the exemption notification was not given to one of the equipment namely, Endoscopic Camera. The above equipment was cleared on payment of Customs duty. However, the appellant challenged the decision of the Departmental authorities. When the issue reached CEGAT, it was remanded to the Original Authority vide Final Order No. 762/2002 dated 14-6- 2002 with a direction to consider the plea of the appellant for examining the benefit under 51. No. 47 of Notification No. 138/88 dated 18-4-1988 which was not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other purposes, but why have they denied it the benefit is not understood. I hold that the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellant for the specific considerations I list out herein now. 8. Firstly Dr. H. T. Gangal is an authority in the field in his own right, secondly, he has obtained various opinions from recognized experts who have all supported him that along with the camera the PCN operating set becomes complete; thirdly, Dr. Gangal continues to work and fight for a noble cause, running Arogya Medical Trust in the Municipal Market Building, PB Road, Hosur, Hubli; fourthly, the camera is being used by him to assist in the research work, teach the surgery students and carryout efficient and quick laparoscopy surgery proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the 'Grounds of the Appeal':- (a) The learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Shri R. Sharma, has noted the appellant has enough material to claim the consignment under the said notification. The impugned order under such circumstances cannot be a speaking order. (b) There is no added information available to the department or the DGHS office apart from the technical information to both by the appellant. This should have been relied on to allow the benefit. (c) The learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rightly pointed that the DGHS office has not stated the chances of misuse of the camera, hinting the request of the appellant is valid to be adjudicated in his favour. (d) The learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fications granting exemption is as follows :- Notfn. 208/81 dated 22-9-1981 Notfn. 138/88 dated 18-4-88 Schedule B. Sl. No. VA Table -C, Sl. No. 47 Operating set for Percuteneous Nephrastomy and Percuteneous removal of kidney stones with continuos irrigation and suction with ultrasonic lithorite, etc. Operating set for Percutenous Nephrastomy and Percutenous removal of kidney stones with continuos irrigation and suction with ultrasonic lithorite. In order to extend the benefit of Notification, the impugned item should be a part of the operating set mentioned in the Notification. Who is to decide such a highly technical issue? It appears that the appellants represented to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22A Schedule 'B' of Notification 208/81-Cus. Yours faithfully, Sd/-xxxx (Dr. (Mrs.) S. V. OHARAN) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (HA)" In the above clarification it is categorically stated that the endoscopy camera cannot fit into the definition of PCN instrument as at Sl. Mo. 22A of Schedule B of Notification No. 208/81. The appellant made efforts by taking up the matter again for a favourable consideration. However, the DGHS in his letter dated 11-12-98 has rejected the appellant's request saying that no further representation in the matter will be entertained; When this is the factual position, it would be very difficult nay impossible for the Revenue authorities to ignore the clarification of the DGHS and to extend the benefit. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
