Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether defibrillators cleared by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. dated 23-07-1996 and Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 01-03-1997.
Analysis: The relevant notifications had narrowed the description of exempted goods and no longer covered defibrillators for external use, while the earlier notification had expressly included both internal and external defibrillators and referred to internal defibrillator paddles. The product described by the appellant was essentially a portable defibrillator/monitor for external use, and its use during open-heart surgery depended on optional internal paddles. The exclusion of external-use defibrillators could not be overridden merely because such optional accessories were available. The goods, therefore, could not be equated with defibrillators for internal use as contemplated by the exemption notifications.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. or Notification No. 4/97-C.E. in respect of its defibrillators.
Ratio Decidendi: A product primarily meant for external defibrillation does not qualify as an exempted internal-use defibrillator merely because it can be used in surgery with optional internal paddles, especially when the exemption notification excludes external-use defibrillators.