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 orthopaedic implants such as hip joints, screws, plates and nails were covered by Notification No. 71/86-C.E. dated 10-2-1986 as artificial limbs or rehabilitation aids for the handicapped, and thus entitled to full exemption from duty.
Analysis: The technical information placed on record, including the opinion of the Directorate General of Health Services and the material from the author referred to in the adjudication order, supported the view that the implants were used for fixation of broken bones and for correction of incapacitating disabilities of the musculoskeletal system. These materials showed that the goods answered the description in the exemption notification. No contrary expert evidence was produced to dislodge that technical position, and the earlier rejection of the claim proceeded on too narrow a view of the notification.
Conclusion: The goods were held to fall within the exemption notification, and the denial of exemption was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where expert and technical evidence establishes that the goods squarely answer the description in an exemption notification, and the Revenue produces no contrary technical material, the exemption cannot be denied on a narrow construction of the notification.