1996 (8) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Imported parts for medical equipment qualify for concessional duty under Notification No. 235/83-Cus

The Tribunal held that the conditions of Notification No. 80/85-Cus. cannot be imposed on parts covered by Notification No. 235/83-Cus. The parts imported ... Medical Electronics equipment Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983 and Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 for concessional assessment of parts imported for manufacturing electronic medical equipment.2. Interpretation of conditions stipulated in Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 in relation to parts covered by Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983.3. Validity of the appellate authority's decision to extend concessional duty benefits to parts under Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983 and Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985:The core issue revolves around whether the concessional assessment under Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983, which pertains to parts for manufacturing electronic medical equipment, should be subject to the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985, which pertains to the main equipment. The revenue argued that the parts, specifically 'SECTOR TRANSDUCERS,' imported for manufacturing a Microprocessor-based Ultra Sound Imaging Body Sector Scanner, should be assessed at the same rate as the main equipment, provided the conditions under Notification No. 80/85-Cus. are met.2. Interpretation of Conditions Stipulated in Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985:The revenue contended that the concessional duty under Notification No. 80/85-Cus. is conditional upon the production of certificates from competent authorities, which certify that the main equipment is not manufactured in India and that its import is necessary. The argument was that these conditions should also apply to the parts under Notification No. 235/83-Cus. However, the importer argued that Notification No. 235/83-Cus. should be read independently and that the conditions of Notification No. 80/85-Cus. should not be imposed on it. The importer fulfilled the conditions specific to Notification No. 235/83-Cus., which did not explicitly require compliance with Notification No. 80/85-Cus.3. Validity of the Appellate Authority's Decision:The appellate authority had granted the concessional duty benefits to the parts under Notification No. 235/83-Cus., interpreting that the conditions of Notification No. 80/85-Cus. do not apply to parts. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that Notification No. 235/83-Cus. should be interpreted independently and that its conditions were satisfied by the importer. The Tribunal emphasized that the words 'as is leviable on the said equipment when imported complete' in Notification No. 235/83-Cus. refer to the rate of duty and not the conditions of Notification No. 80/85-Cus. The Tribunal also noted that imposing the conditions of Notification No. 80/85-Cus. on Notification No. 235/83-Cus. would render the latter redundant, which could not have been the legislature's intention.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the conditions specific to Notification No. 80/85-Cus. cannot be read into Notification No. 235/83-Cus. The parts imported for manufacturing the electronic medical equipment are eligible for the concessional duty as per Notification No. 235/83-Cus., provided its own conditions are met. The appeal by the revenue was rejected, and the decision of the appellate authority to extend the concessional duty benefits to the parts was upheld.