TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment that the goods imported though may be used as a general purpose Pippet, is not an accessory of a medical equipment. Once it qualifies to be an accessory of a medical equipment figuring in List 22, automatically the benefit of exemption will flow therefrom. If the finding of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the Tribunal is accepted, then the importer will have the benefit of exemption. The stand of the Department that the goods have imported independently and invoiced independently and therefore, it should not be treated as an accessory of Auto Analyser, does not merit consideration at this point of time, as we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken note of the fact that the purchase order reflects the pippet as ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Mr. P. Mahadevan For the Respondents : No appearance - R1 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 15.9.2005 made in Final Order No.1274/05 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. This Court, by order dated 27.7.2006, admitted this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding the impugned goods, i.e, Micropipettes, as an accessory of the Auto Analyser, when the impugned goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as accessory and was eligible for exemption. 4. The importer, in support of their contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Ferodo V. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) as well as the decision in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries V. State of Andra Pradesh reported in AIR 1976 SC 1418). 5. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the submissions of the importer and took a view that the goods in question was a general purpose pipettor used for the accurate and precise sampling and dispensing of liquid volumes; it can be used for a variety of research purposes, its clinical use being of those and consequently held that it was an independent apparat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be considered as an accessory for medical equipment. The Consultant pointed out that how pipette even though as an independent equipment forms part of the Elisa Kit. They have also produced a certificate from DGHS accepting the pipette as part of Elisa Kit. In a similar manner, the pipette under consideration should also be considered as an assessory for medical equipment, the benefit of Notification No.23/98 has to be given. The Assistant Commissioner's order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. As against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. While taking note of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal concurred with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n import, namely, Micropipettes, are accessories of medical equipments. 11. The view of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries V. State of Andra Pradesh reported in AIR 1976 SC 1418) on the definition of word 'accessory' applies aptly to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court, while considering the issue, held as follows: 7.....Apparently, the deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other uses also. It is its general or predominant user which seems to determine the category in which an article will fall. 10.... Accessories are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard, the first respondent/importer relied upon the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench, New Delhi in the case of Collector of Central Excise Madras V. Allied Computers reported in 1997 (31) ELT 421 (Tribunal) to show that the claim of statements made in the catalogue or brochures is not conclusive for the purpose of assessment, if the actual position is shown to be otherwise. This decision is binding on the Department. Even otherwise, in view of the finding which we have rendered in so far as the first substantial question of law placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries V. State of Andra Pradesh reported in AIR 1976 SC 1418), we find no justification to discredit the claim of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
