2017 (2) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equipment intended to enjoy the exemption. It was only disposable and non-disposable cannulae that was the subject matter of exemption - “sets of the intravenous cannulae and tubing” are not meant for exemption. Burden of proof - Held that: - burden of proving eligibility to the exemption lies totally on the claimant - In absence of discharge of burden of proof by the appellant there is no scope to consider its claim of to the exemption. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/58 & 59/2006 - Final Order No. 42279-42280/2016 - Dated:- 15-11-2016 - Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member None for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igible for exemption under Serial 42 of Part B of Notification No. 208/81 as disposable cannulae for Aorta, Vena Cava and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for intra corporal space . He should have considered and given a finding if as per the DGHS clarifications (Exs. H I) Scalp Vein Sets clearly answered the said description 5. The issue which was before learned Commissioner (Appeals) being to examine whether the goods are covered under Sl. No. 42 of Part B of the Notification, he thoroughly examined the same. He considered as to whether judgment in the Writ Petition No. 1141/1989 and W.P. No.720/1989 was on the similar facts. He found that goods not being available being the import of 1989, it was only the document that wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... posable and non-disposable cannulae. The lifesaving equipment that was imported is totally out of scope of Entry 42 of Part B to the notification for the reason that there was no set of equipment intended to enjoy the exemption. It was only disposable and non-disposable cannulae that was the subject matter of exemption. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) having analysed the issue threadbare, he inferred that sets of the intravenous cannulae and tubing are not meant for exemption. He is therefore correct. 10. It may be stated that the burden of proving eligibility to the exemption lies totally on the claimant. Appellant failed to show that sets with disposable and non-disposable cannulae are meant for exemption. In absence of discharge of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X