Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing in the Surgery Department. Such usage is claimed to have supported the contention of the appellant for the product to be called as “Absorbable Haemostatic Material for control of Surgical Vessel Bleeding”. The wound management is primary purpose of the impugned goods - They may not fall under the general category of "Life Saving Drug or Medicine or Diagnostic Test Kit" as specified in List 4 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. - the Original Authority is correct in his conclusion for denying the exemption claimed by the main appellant. Extended period of limitation - Penalty - Held that: - the whole issue is involving interpretation of the application or usage of the products in question - It is not correct or legally sustainable for the Revenue t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant to deny the exemption under the said notification and also to demand differential duty for all the imports made by the main appellant during the past 5 years. Proposal for imposition of penalties were also made. The case was adjudicated resulting in the issue of impugned order. 2. The Commissioner held that imported products are basically Collagen Preparation and are not Absorbable Haemostatic material for Control of Surgical Bleeding Vessels . These are not life saving drugs/medicines/diagnostic kits and as such, the appellant is not eligible for exemption under notification no.2/2002-Cus. He also confirmed differential duty of ₹ 67,05,504/- in respect of the goods imported for the past 5 years. He also imposed equal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in the medical field. Now, Revenue seeks to deny the exemption based on certain inquiries and demand the duty for the past 5 years. He stated that there is no evidence of any mis-representation or willful evasion of duty. It is a question of interpretation where they have submitted enough material in support of their claim and the Revenue also conducted inquiry and countered the claim of the appellant. In such situation, there can be no question of malafide intend to evade payment of duty. As such, the demand for extended period and the imposition of penalties on the appellants were not justifiable. 5. Ld. AR submitted that original order examined the issue at length with various technical literature and opinion given by the experts in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation of all the opinions relied upon by the Original Authority, we note that the Medifil and Skin Temp are basically Collagen Preparation. They are basically used in wound management. Though there may be case of their usage in control of Surgical Vessel Bleeding, their common and established usage only for such purpose has not been categorically established by the appellant. The appellants did produce certain opinions from persons in the medical profession to support his claim. We note that these opinions do not indicate that the impugned goods are essentially and predominantly understood in the medical field and applied regularly as Absorbable Haemostatic material for control of Surgical Vessel Bleeding. In fact, the opinions to the contr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inal Authority is correct in his conclusion for denying the exemption claimed by the main appellant. 10. On the question of limitation, we note that the whole issue is involving interpretation of the application or usage of the products in question. Admittedly, there were varying opinions by the experts in the field. Studies have been conducted to show the application of the impugned goods in controlling Surgical Vessel Bleeding. In any case, considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above involving interpretation, we find that there is no case for invoking extended period. The appellants have been importing these items from 2001 onwards. They have filed declaration claiming the exemption, now in dispute. It is not correct or l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates