TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is that the Cannula is not eligible for exemption as per the terms of the above entry. It is common knowledge that the circulator system of the body consisted of arteries, veins and capillaries. It is also not disputed that there are different types of arteries and veins and aorta and vena cava are anatomically and physiologically different from smaller peripheral, arteries and veins. If IVC manufactured by the appellants are used in the similar such arteries and veins, the exemption is certainly eligible. - exemption notification does not prescribe the degree of similarity in respect of "blood vessels" similar to aorta and vena cavae and in a broad sense, even peripheral veins would be similar to vena cavae as both carry deoxygenated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09, 1982/2010 and E/01-08/2012-EX(DB) - - - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri A K Raha, Adv, Special Counsel ORDER Per B Ravichandran There are 11 appeals filed by the appellants against the orders of the lower authorities. These appeals are taken up for decision together as the issue involved is same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medical and surgical instruments and appliances. A dispute arose regarding their eligibility for exemption for Intra Venous Cannula (IVC) and Central Venous Catheters (CVC) as per notification no.6/2003-CE as amended, read with notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally state anything about the nature of blood vessels and the peripheral blood vessels, on which their IVCs are useable, are not discussed in the opinion or by the lower authority. It is not their case that the IVC made by them are useable for aorta or for vena cavae. The appellant's main contention is that IVC manufactured by them is for blood vessels which includes all arteries and veins. This aspect has not been considered with clarity either by DGHS or by the lower authority, who relied on such DGHS's opinion. 4. The appellant also contended that the demands in respect of CVC were also not sustainable as they are nothing but different types of cannula. Certain show cause notices covered the demand consequent on denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is not eligible for exemption under Sl.No.34 of List 37 of notification no.21/2002-Cus for CVC. The appellant originally claimed exemption under Sl.no.33 and later changed their stand to claim exemption as Cannula under Sl.No.34 itself. He further stated that the Tariff Sub-heading for Catheters of different types are 90183910 and 90183920 and whereas Cannula is under 90183930. 7. He further argued that ignoring the DGHS's opinion dated 8.12.2004, and arriving at a conclusion contrary to the same in the case of M/s. Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the Tribunal makes the said order as not binding in nature. It is his argument that the blood vessels similar to aorta and vena cavae are ought to be great or main bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s solely based on the DGHS opinion. While DGHS elaborately discussed the difference between the aorta and vena cavae on one side and peripheral vessels at the other side, there is no clarity from the records as to what is the scope of the term that blood vessels . The IVC manufactured by the appellants are used as Cannula is not disputed. The department's contention is that the Cannula is not eligible for exemption as per the terms of the above entry. It is common knowledge that the circulator system of the body consisted of arteries, veins and capillaries. It is also not disputed that there are different types of arteries and veins and aorta and vena cava are anatomically and physiologically different from smaller peripheral, arteries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Regarding the second issue, ld. Special Counsel contended that the CVC is clearly different and distinctive product and cannot be covered under the category of Cannula for the purpose of exemption under the above said notification. CVC is covered by Sl.No.33 as against Cannula covered under Sl.No.34 in the List 37. The appellants were paying duty on CVC and later claimed exemption under Sl.No.33. Further, after DGHS opinion, they changed their stand to claim exemption as Cannula. 12. We find that there are separate entries in the exemption notification for Cannula and for Catheters of different types. The appellants claim for exemption under entry no.34 in the List 37 of the Notification no.21/2002-Cus is not tenable as the entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
