9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 662 - AT - CustomsMedical equipment- The issue involved in this case is the eligibility to exemption contained in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 and 6/2006-CE. dated 1-3-2006 to Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus . Both the notifications extended the concession to Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus . After consulting literature on the product furnished by the appellants the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the equipment was an integrated anaesthesia delivery system. Since the machine s function was anaesthesia delivery but was also used for ventilation during surgery by incorporating ventilator function such machines could not be called as Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus . Held that- This appeal is filed by the revenue canvassing denial of the benefit of notifications to similar goods as Impugned in the above appeal filed by the importer seeks to vacate the Order-in-Appeal No. 93/2007 dated 26-7-2007. As we have held that the impugned goods Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus are entitled to the disputed notification benefits this appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and 6/2006-CE. for "Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus." Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and 6/2006-CE. for "Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus." In Appeal No. C/630/07, M/s. Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd. imported Anesthetic Ventilator System (AVS) seeking clearance under concessional rates. The Commissioner (A) found that the imported AVS machines were entitled to exemption benefits under the notifications as they integrated ventilator system with anaesthesia delivery control, thus qualifying as AVS. The literature on the product and expert opinion supported this finding, leading to the allowance of appeals filed by Datex against the assessment orders. In Appeal No. C/9/08, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the denial of exemption benefits under the same notifications for AVS consignments, stating that the equipment should be a ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus or actually used with it to qualify for the benefit. The Commissioner relied on expert opinions and market understanding that the impugned goods were primarily anaesthesia systems, not ventilators used with anaesthesia apparatus. The appellants challenged this decision on grounds of natural justice and inconsistency with a previous order allowing similar benefits. During the hearing, the appellants cited a Tribunal decision supporting the entitlement of identical equipment to the disputed exemption. The technical literature and expert opinions provided by both parties detailed the functions of the impugned equipment, emphasizing its ventilator capabilities used with anaesthesia apparatus. The Tribunal found that the impugned goods indeed qualified as "Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus" under the notifications, thus vacating the Commissioner's decision and allowing the appeal filed by Datex. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the AVS machines for exemption benefits under the notifications, rejecting the revenue's appeal seeking to deny the benefits to similar goods. The decision was based on the composite functions of the equipment, cost differentials, and expert opinions supporting its classification as a ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the expert opinions considered, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant.
|
