Exemption for I.V. cannulas applied where the notification covered blood vessels and similar veins, defeating the demand and penalty.

I.V. cannulas were held to fall within the exemption entry for disposable and non-disposable cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels, as well as cannula for intra-corporal spaces. The Tribunal applied its earlier rulings construing the notification on its own terms and treated "blood vessels" as an independent expression that was not narrowed to exclude I.V. cannulas. Reliance on a departmental circular and DGHS opinion was rejected. The exemption therefore applied, and the demand and penalty could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether I.V. cannulas manufactured by the appellants were covered by the exemption entry for disposable and non-disposable cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for intra-corporal spaces.

Analysis: The Tribunal found the issue covered by earlier decisions holding that the expression in the exemption entry had already been construed to include the subject goods. It followed its own prior rulings and noted that the denial of exemption rested only on the departmental circular and DGHS opinion, whereas the wording of the notification had to be read on its own terms. The expression "blood vessels" was treated as independent in the entry, and no narrower limitation excluding I.V. cannulas was accepted.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption and the demand and penalty could not stand.

---