Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 908 - AT - CustomsApplicability of exemption notifications - N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 and N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - Anesthesia Ventilatory System i.e., Aestiva /5-7100; Avance/5; Aestiva/5-7900; S/5-Aespire and Aisys - appellants have classified the goods under CTH 9019 2090 and claimed concessional rate of duty as per Sl. No.363 (A), List 37 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 and Item No.3 under Central Excise Notification No.6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 - benefit of notifications denied. Held that:- The impugned equipment is composite equipment. Whereas the department sees the equipment to be an anesthesia machine having an accessory in the form of ventilator, the appellants have presented the same as a ventilator used with anesthesia machine. On perusal of the brochure for AestivaTM /5 Compact mentions that bags or vent switch turns mechanical ventilator on or off without additional controls. The literature available appears to show that the impugned equipment is basically an anesthesia equipment with a ventilator which increases the capacity of the machines to cater to the requirements of the patients as and when such a need arises. The ventilatory system appears to be part of the design of the machines; therefore, it has to be held that the ventilator is part of the anesthesia systems imported by the appellants - exemption Notification is clear that the exemption is available for the ventilatory system used with anesthesia operators while there is no doubt in our minds that exemption is available for the ventilatory systems, used with the anesthesia systems. The impugned goods are ventilators which are used with Anesthesia Systems. The predominance of the ventilator/Anesthesia System is not the context of the Notification. As long as, they are ventilators and used with Anesthesia Systems, exemption should be available - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|