Broad construction of cannula exemption upheld for intra venous devices, but central venous catheters remain outside the entry.

Exemption entries for cannula were construed broadly to cover intra venous cannula, because the expression "blood vessels" was treated as an independent term and not restricted by the qualifier attached to "similar veins"; the exemption claim on that point was therefore accepted. Central venous catheters were treated as distinct in structure and function from cannula, and the separate catheter entries in the notifications meant they could not be read into the cannula entry; the exemption claim on that point was therefore rejected. The result was only partial relief, limited to intra venous cannula.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether intra venous cannula were eligible for exemption under the relevant entries in Notification No. 21/2002-Customs and Notification No. 6/2003-CE. (ii) Whether central venous catheters were eligible for the same exemption as cannula.

Issue (i): Whether intra venous cannula were eligible for exemption under the relevant entries in Notification No. 21/2002-Customs and Notification No. 6/2003-CE.

Analysis: The exemption entry covered cannula for aorta, vena cavae, similar veins and blood vessels, and the term "blood vessels" was treated as an independent expression not confined by the qualifier attached to "veins". The record did not justify denying exemption merely on the basis that the devices were used in peripheral vessels. On the reasoning already adopted in earlier identical matters, the scope of the entry was broad enough to include cannula used in similar arteries and veins.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption for intra venous cannula was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to exemption on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether central venous catheters were eligible for the same exemption as cannula.

Analysis: The notification contained separate entries for cannula and for different types of catheters. Central venous catheters were found to be distinct in structure and function from cannula, even if there may be some overlap in usage. The assessee did not establish that the catheters could be brought within the specific cannula entry.

Conclusion: The exemption claim for central venous catheters was rejected, and the denial of exemption on this issue was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of intra venous cannula and failed in respect of central venous catheters, so the assessee obtained only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption entry covering cannula for specific vessels and blood vessels must be construed so that "blood vessels" is not confined by the qualifier attached to "similar veins", but a separate and distinct entry for catheters cannot be expanded to include cannula.

---