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>Interim stay on higher duty for glucometers as prior rulings favor classification under Heading 9027</h1> HC held that prior rulings support classifying glucometers under Heading 9027 and that the adjudicating authority failed to consider these binding ... Classification of Blood Glucose Monitors (glucometers) - classifiable under Chapter Heading 9027 or under Chapter Heading 9018? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it appears that the issue regarding the classification of glucometers under Heading 9027 has been settled in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and by this Court in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (11) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Respondent No. 3 has failed to consider the above decisions while passing the impugned order dated 02.01.2025. Therefore, the Appellant has made out a case for interim relief. On account of the impugned order, the Appellant is at a disadvantage as he would have to discharge a higher rate of duty compared to his competitors, which would have an impact on his business. This is on account of the fact that under Section 28J, an advance ruling issued under Section 28I is made binding only on the applicant and the corresponding customs authorities and not on other third parties. However, at the same time, it is required to consider protecting the interests of the revenue since the differential duty of 2.5% will have substantial revenue implications. The operation of the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 stayed till the final disposal of the present Appeal. Issues: (i) Whether blood glucose monitors (glucometers) are classifiable under Chapter Heading 9027 or under Chapter Heading 9018 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the advance ruling dated 02.01.2025 is legally sustainable in view of binding judicial decisions and whether interim relief is warranted.Issue (i): Classification of glucometers under Chapter Heading 9027 or Heading 9018.Analysis: The question concerns the proper tariff heading for glucometers and whether prior decisions holding such devices under Heading 9027 are applicable. The Court examined earlier authoritative decisions addressing the classification of glucometers and noted that those decisions were not considered by the authority that issued the impugned advance ruling.Conclusion: Prima facie the classification issue favours treatment of glucometers under Heading 9027.Issue (ii): Sustainability of the advance ruling dated 02.01.2025 and entitlement to interim relief.Analysis: The advance ruling was examined for compliance with binding precedents and consideration of relevant facts. The Court found a prima facie failure by the authority to consider controlling decisions and noted the commercial prejudice to the importer due to a higher duty rate; the Court also balanced potential revenue interest and required safeguards (provisional clearance and bond for differential duty).Conclusion: The impugned advance ruling is prima facie unsustainable and interim relief is justified; operation of the impugned order is stayed until final disposal of the appeal.Final Conclusion: The Court granted interim relief by staying the advance ruling, permitting provisional clearance under Heading 9027 subject to a bond for the differential duty and interest, while the substantive appeal on classification proceeds to final disposal.Ratio Decidendi: Where an advance ruling fails to consider controlling judicial decisions on classification, a prima facie case for interim relief to prevent commercial prejudice exists and provisional measures (stay and bond) may be granted pending final adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
