Exemption for imported medical equipment upheld where documentary and expert evidence proved notified use despite alternative functionality.

Imported CCD camera qualified for exemption under Notification No. 23/98-Cus. because catalogue material and certificates from ENT specialists and medical institutions showed it was meant for use in synoscopy. The Tribunal accepted that documentary and expert evidence established the notified use, and followed an earlier identical decision. Exemption could not be denied merely because the same instrument was also capable of another function, such as endoscopy, when its eligible use was proved. The departmental appeal therefore failed and the exemption benefit remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported CCD camera was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. on the ground that it was meant for fitting and use in synoscopy.

Analysis: The imported item was examined in the light of the catalogue, certificates issued by ENT specialists, and certificates from medical institutions showing that it was intended for use with synoscopy. The appellate authority had accepted these materials and granted the notification benefit. The Tribunal also noted that the issue stood covered by an earlier identical decision and that exemption could not be denied merely because the instrument could also serve another function, such as endoscopy, when the evidence established its eligible use.

Conclusion: The imported CCD camera was held eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus., and the departmental appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The exemption benefit granted by the appellate authority was upheld, and the challenge by the Revenue was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary and expert evidence establish that imported goods are meant for the notified use, exemption cannot be denied merely because the goods may also be capable of another function.

---