Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2001 (11) TMI 602 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Heading 84.71 or Heading 90.33 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for duty exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Goods: The appellants imported 'Cardiovascular Angiography Systems with Digital Subtraction Angiography' and 'GEMNET DCR 2000' as an accessory to the main equipment. The department argued that the GEMNET DCR 2000 should be classified under Heading 84.71 and not eligible for duty exemption. The Commissioner rejected the appeal stating that the GEMNET DCR 2000 is an automatic data processing unit under CTH 8471, not an accessory to the medical equipment. The appellants claimed that the GEMNET DCR 2000 is essential for the Angiography system to function effectively. 2. Definition of Accessory: The Asstt. Commissioner concluded that an accessory cannot be a full equipment and must be dependent on the main equipment to function. The GEMNET DCR-2000 was found to work independently of the Angiography system, storing and retrieving medical records. The Angiography system itself had a built-in digital storage system, eliminating the necessity of the GEMNET. The department relied on Chapter Note 5(E) to classify the GEMNET DCR 2000 under CTH 84.71. 3. Expert Opinion and Remand: A certification from GE Medical Systems stated that the GEMNET DCR 2000 cannot function independently as an automatic data processing machine. The tribunal emphasized the need for expert evaluation to determine if the imported entity qualifies as an accessory or an automatic data processing machine. The matter was remanded back for evaluation by experts to ascertain the nature and eligibility of the imported goods, allowing both parties to provide supporting material. In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the initial order and remanded the case for further evaluation by experts to determine the classification and eligibility of the imported goods, emphasizing the importance of technical expertise in making a conclusive decision.
|