TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Serial No. 32 of a notification which grants total exemption from the customs duty. This question had arisen earlier and the matter was considered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the CEGAT", in P.R. Parekh v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Appeal No. CD (SS) A. No. 437/84-C) and by a judgment dated 29th of June 1984, the Tribunal held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs in Bombay seem to have insisted on net treating the Foley Balloon Catheters as suction catheters. Hence, several parties came to this Court and orders have been passed requiring the Assistant Collectors to treat the Foley Balloon Catheters as being exempted. 3. Subsequently, the Collector of Customs by his order No. S/10-49/88 (5B) dated 11th of March 1988 again took the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again the view that is being taken by the customs authorities of not treating the Foley Balloon Catheters as suction catheters is challenged. Mr. Sethna, the learned Advocate appearing for the customs authorities, contends that in view of the order passed by Bharucha, J. in Writ Petition No. 1108 of 1988, which is confirmed by the Appellate Bench, one must proceed on the basis that the view expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1988, Order dated 22nd of November 1988 in Writ Petition No. 3496 of 1988 and Order dated 29th of September 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2718 of 1988). 6. Secondly, the question is whether the Collector of Customs can take a view different to the Tribunal's view on the ground that subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal the D.G.H.S. has given a revised opinion. Prima facie, in my opinion, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the exemption which is held to be available by the CEGAT, action for excluding Foley Balloon Catheters from the exemption may be taken. At present, however, one must proceed on the basis that the view of the CEGAT, which is binding upon all the authorities below it, is in the field. Hence, rule in each of these two petitions, returnable on 19th of June 1989. Mr. Sethna waives service of notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
