TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Upheld Denial of Exemption for Goods under Notification 65/88: Distinction Between Auto and Semi-Auto Analyser</h1> <h3>BAYER DIAGNOSTICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeals, upholding the denial of exemption for the goods in question under Entries 64 and 65 of ... Auto analyzer vis-a-vis semi-auto analyzer Issues: Eligibility for exemption under Entries 64 and 65 of Notification 65/88.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand is the eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Entries 64 and 65 of the Table to Notification 65/88. The Commissioner's order, based on the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, questioned whether the goods imported by the appellant qualified for the exemptions outlined in these entries.The specific goods in question were the Seac CH 100 Computerised Semi-Auto Analyser and parts of Glucometer II with memory blood Glucometer. The appellant claimed exemption under Entry 64 for the Seac CH 100, which was denied on the basis that it was a semi-Auto analyser, not an Auto analyser as required. Similarly, the exemption under Entry 65 was denied for parts of Glucometer II.Following a Tribunal order, the department conducted inquiries to distinguish between an Auto Analyser and Semi-Auto Analyser. Expert opinions from Dr. Bipin Shah, Mr. Samar Pal, and Brig. N.P. Sharma highlighted the key differences, emphasizing that an Auto analyser performs multiple tests automatically with specific features absent in a semi-Auto analyser. The appellant's argument, based on dictionary definitions and a previous Tribunal case, failed to counter these expert opinions.The Tribunal clarified that the crucial distinction lies in the term 'Auto analyser' used in the industry to define a specific type of analyser, differentiating it from a semi-Auto analyser. Strict construction of the notification terms requires the claimant to prove entitlement to the exemption. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not convinced by the appellant's claim for exemption, emphasizing the need to meet the notification criteria. The judgment did not address the satisfaction of duty incidence passing requirement under section 27A(2) of the Act.Conclusively, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the denial of exemption for the goods in question under Entries 64 and 65 of Notification 65/88.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
