1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Customs Tribunal Allows Refund for Medical Equipment Import</h1> The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported goods as 'Image Intensifier' under specific Customs and Central Excise Notifications, allowing a refund ... - Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Notification, eligibility for refund of BCD and CVD, applicability of exemption Notifications.Classification under Customs Notification:The impugned order classified the imported 'Mobile X-Ray Image Intensifier System' as 'Image Intensifier' under specific entries in Customs and Central Excise Notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a refund of BCD and CVD based on this classification as medical equipment. The Tribunal upheld this classification based on a previous similar case.Eligibility for Refund of BCD and CVD:The Tribunal found that the goods were correctly classified under the Customs and Central Excise Notifications, allowing the respondent to claim a refund of BCD and CVD. The lower appellate authority's decision to grant this benefit was upheld, as the goods were chargeable to a 'nil' rate of CVD under the relevant Notification.Applicability of Exemption Notifications:The department argued that a different Notification applied to the goods, charging a duty of 8%. However, the Tribunal held that the specific entry in the Central Excise Notification used by the lower authority was more appropriate. It was noted that when multiple exemption Notifications apply, the assessee can choose the favorable one. Therefore, the decision on the claim for refund of CVD was upheld.Conclusion:The Tribunal sustained the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the correct classification of the goods under the specific Notifications and the eligibility for refund of BCD and CVD. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of choosing the appropriate exemption Notification when multiple options are available.