9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the matters were called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, an application for adjournment was filed by them. We find from the record that the present cases have been listed on Board on various dates and notices were being issued accordingly. But on every occasion, the appellants were absent. Since the present appeals are very old pertaining to the year 2008, the same are being taken up for disposal with the consent of Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported four consignments of Spinal Needles [Description - Spinal Instrument in Bulk (Spinal Needle) Non-Sterilised ] by Speed Post from Taiwan in March, 2008 and claimed the benefit of Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended. The Serial No. 370 of the said Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, covers Spinal Needle imported by the appellant. Serial No. 370 of the said Notification includes, Assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 41 . All items in the List No. 41 would fall under Serial No. 370 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pendently. The needle is an instrument and has to be treated as spinal instrument and, therefore, it attracts the benefit of exemption notification as spinal instrument . 3.5 The appellant has also stated that Notification being clear as inclusive of spinal instrument, there is no requirement of any external aid in the matter of interpretation of said exemption notification. The Appellate Commissioner in paragraph 8 of the adjudication order accepts that needle may be an instrument in terms of Tariff Heading 9018 32 20 but nonetheless dismissed the appeal by holding that spinal needle cannot be treated as a spinal instrument by holding that internet site surfed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) showed that spinal instruments are those items which are implants used in surgery in spine. In the order he expressed doubt whether spinal needle could be termed as spinal instrument. 3.6 The appellant further states that in any event in the alternative to the claim of the petitioner to the exemption notification under Serial No. 41 it would also be covered under Serial No. 33 of List No. 37 Item No. 34 which runs as follows : Disposable and non-disposabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). (ii) Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. Customs, Delhi III - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 712 (Tri.-Del.). For ready reference, the relevant paras in the case of Becton Bixkinson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are reproduced below : 8. We have considered the rival submissions on the question regarding the interpretation of the entry mentioned above in List 37 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., The entry, in question, is reproduced below- Disposable and non-disposable Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and Cannula for intra-corporal spaces. Prior to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., there was an identical Entry No. 34 in Notification No. 55/95-Cus., which has been interpreted by the Tribunal s in its judgment in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. (supra). In the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. (supra) the point of dispute was as to whether top brand scalp infusion set imported by the assessee - M/s. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. were eligible for Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 55/95-Cus., the Sl. No. 34 of which covered disposable and non-di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Though the Apex Court s order dismissing the civil appeal does not record any reasons, in view of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) [para 44], the implication of the dismissal of the civil appeal, even if without recording any reason, is that the Tribunal s order stands merged with the Apex Court s order and the same would be a binding precedent. The point as to whether dismissal of civil appeal by the Apex Court against lower Court s/Tribunal s order without giving any reason is a binding precedent or not, has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Daman reported in 2011 (263) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) in para 32 of which the Apex Court has held thus : This Court has consistently held that the medical supplies supplied to the Doctors are liable to excise duty. Elaborate consideration may not be forthcoming in these judgments, but, in our view, the issue stands concluded. We say so for the reason that this Court, in catena of cases, has opined that in case, the appeal has been dismissed in the absence of detailed reasons or without re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on hand. Were it so, the previous decisions could more easily be treated as binding by applying the law of precedent and it will be unnecessary to take resort to the principle of stare decisis. It is, therefore, sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests or what is the basis of the decision. In other words, for the purpose of applying the rule of stare decisis, it is unnecessary to enquire or determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier decision which is said to operate as stare decisis . 9. In the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal interpreted the Entry No. 34 of the Notification No. 55/95-Cus., has held that in this entry, the term blood vessels has to be read independent of the expression for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and that the word similar would not qualify the expression blood vessels and accordingly IV Cannula meant for any blood vessels would be covered by this entry and would be eligible for exemption. This decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
