2016 (12) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 17/2001 Cus dated 1.3.2001 - Stents - interpretation of the terms of Notification - whether Cardiac Catheters includes Stents or not? - Held that - it should not be misconceived that stent is to be understand as catheters - In absence of any logical reason, the decision stated by the respondent does not have the character of precedent. Therefore, that shall not govern our decision today for which we accept the submission of Revenue and allow its appeal - benefit of notification denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 17/2001 - Whether "Stents" are included in the term "Cardiac Catheters"

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the issue of whether "Stents" are included in the term "Cardiac Catheters" as per Notification No. 17/2001. The Revenue contended that stents are not included in the exemption provided for catheters under the said notification. The Tribunal noted that a stent is a device to open a closed artery or vein, while a catheter is used to install the stent in the heart. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent was to grant the benefit of the notification to catheters but not to stents. The plain interpretation of the notification suggested that various types of catheters were exempt from duty, but not the stents. The Tribunal held that when the legislature intends to grant exemption to specific goods, they specify those goods explicitly. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, concluding that the stents should not be considered as catheters under the notification.

The Respondent cited two decisions of the Tribunal where relief was granted to assesses regarding the interpretation of the same notification. However, the Tribunal noted that these decisions did not provide any logical reasoning as to why stents should be understood as catheters. The Tribunal pointed out that in one case, a certificate not recognized by law was relied upon, and in the absence of any agreed reference to a recognized medical authority, the benefit of the notification was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that these decisions did not set a precedent and should not govern the current decision. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the Revenue and allowed its appeal, emphasizing the lack of logical reasoning in the previous decisions cited by the Respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation of Notification No. 17/2001 regarding the inclusion of stents within the exemption provided for catheters. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between stents and catheters based on their functions and legislative intent. The judgment emphasized the importance of logical reasoning and recognized precedents in legal decisions, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue's contention that stents should not be considered as catheters under the said notification.