TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal allows importer's appeal, classifies medical equipment as ventilator for exemption.</h1> The Tribunal vacated the impugned order in Appeal No. C/8/2008 and allowed the importer's appeal, classifying the medical equipment as a ventilator used ... Medical, Surgical equipment- Wipro imported goods described as “Anaesthesia Ventilator System”. The goods were classified under CSH 9019 2090 of Customs Tariff. After clearance, a notice was issued to the appellants and the Original Authority, after due process of law, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 7,04,374/- against Wipro in respect of the goods cleared under these 2 Bills of Entry denying the exemption allowed to the goods at the time of their clearance. The equipments cleared under Bill of Entry Sl. No. 365826 dated 14-2-2007 was allowed clearance on payment of merit rate of duty. Held that-impugned equipment has composite functions with ventilator system approximately Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 lakhs as against anaesthesia equipment costing approximately Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000/-. Impugned goods entitled to exemption benefit. Issues: Eligibility to exemption of medical equipment described as 'Ventilator used with Anaesthesia Apparatus' under specific notifications.Analysis:Appeal No. C/8/2008 (Wipro GE Medical Systems)1. The appellant imported medical equipment described as 'Anaesthesia Ventilator System' and sought exemption under specific notifications. However, after clearance, a notice was issued denying the exemption and imposing a differential duty. The appeal challenged this decision based on principles of natural justice and cited relevant case laws.2. The issue revolved around the eligibility for exemption under Notifications No. 21/2002-Cus. and 6/2006-C.E. for 'Ventilator used with Anaesthesia Apparatus.' The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the equipment should be primarily a ventilator capable of being used with Anaesthesia Apparatus to qualify for the benefit.3. Technical literature and expert opinions were presented to support the equipment's functions as a ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus. The Tribunal analyzed the functions and cost of the equipment, ultimately concluding that it was entitled to the disputed exemption benefit.Appeal No. 629/20074. This appeal by the Revenue aimed to deny the benefit of notifications to similar goods as in the previous appeal. However, since the Tribunal determined in the previous appeal that the 'Ventilator used with Anaesthesia Apparatus' was eligible for the exemption, this appeal by the Revenue was rejected.In conclusion, the Tribunal vacated the impugned order in Appeal No. C/8/2008 and allowed the appeal filed by the importer, Wipro, based on the equipment's classification as a ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus. The appeal by the Revenue in Appeal No. 629/2007 was rejected in line with the decision made in the previous appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
