Exemption notification coverage for infusion sets denied where binding precedent covered the goods and contrary authority was inapplicable.

Infusion sets manufactured by the assessee were examined for exemption under Notification No. 339/86-C.E., Sl. No. 23. The Tribunal noted that the Calcutta High Court had already held the relevant goods to be covered by the notification and that several Tribunal decisions had followed that view. It distinguished the Madras High Court ruling relied upon by the assessee because it concerned different goods and a different customs context involving scalp vein sets. On that basis, the contrary authority was treated as inapplicable and the exemption claim was not accepted; the appellate order denying the benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether infusion sets manufactured by the assessee were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 339/86-C.E. under Sl. No. 23 of the Table annexed thereto.

Analysis: The benefit of the notification had earlier been allowed by the Assistant Collector, but that order had been set aside in appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Calcutta High Court had already held the relevant goods to be covered by the notification and that the same view had been followed in several Tribunal decisions. It also found that the Madras High Court decision relied upon by the assessee concerned different goods and different circumstances, namely scalp vein sets in a customs context, and was therefore not applicable.

Conclusion: The goods were not entitled to the exemption claim pressed by the assessee, and the appellate order denying the benefit was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected as the dispute was governed by the existing High Court view and no infirmity was found in the denial of exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods in dispute are directly covered by binding precedent on the scope of an exemption notification, and the relied-upon contrary authority concerns materially different goods or context, the exemption claim fails.

---