9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order No. 20304/2019 - Dated:- 1-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri R. Muralidharan, Advocate For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per: V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No.115/2009 dt. 09/09/2009. The appellant is a manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter Heading 3006 of the CETA. The dispute is for the period February to December 2007 on the clearance made Sterilized Atraumatic needled Sutures manufactured by the appellant. The appellant claimed the classification of these goods under Chapter heading 9018. Goods covered by Chapter heading 9018 are eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 8% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged by Revenue that the classification is required to be determined on the basis of the end-use. Further he submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Johnson Johnson may not be applicable since at the time of the dispute in that case, the Central Excise Tariff was different from the Tariff during the present period. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the dispute in the present case stands already considered and decided by the Tribunal for the earlier period. The Tribunal held that the goods are rightly classifiable under CETA 9018 and entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.10/2006 dt. 01/03/2006. The Tribunal s observation is reproduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, were not considered. If the evidence adduced by the assessee had been considered, the benefit of the Notification (Sl. No. 267) would have, in all likelihood, been granted. In this context, the learned Counsel has also usefully referred to the apex court s judgment in Johnson Johnson case (supra). M/s. Johnson Johnson Ltd. were manufacturers of both cardio-vascular sutures and atraumatic needled sutures, the former used in cardio-vascular surgery and the latter in ophthalmic surgery. Cardio-vascular sutures were mentioned at Sl. No. 4 in the Schedule appended to Notification No. 339/86-C.E., whereunder the manufacturer claimed exemption from payment of duty. The question arose before the apex court as to whether the sutures manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e one hand and suturing material on the other. In the present case, undisputedly, the thread in coils was imported by the assessee and the needles were indigenously procured. We can say that the imported material is a suturing material. We can as well say that the metal or the alloy of metals, out of which the needles were made, is also a suturing material. But a finished needle with a chosen length of thread attached to it would stand on a different footing. We have no doubt in our mind that the fixing of a chosen length of the thread to the wider end of the curved needle results in the emergence of a surgical appliance, which is the goods under classification today. This commodity is not to be confused with mere suturing material referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
