https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93087 A scalp vein infusion set was treated as a cannula used for blood vessels and brought within Sl. No. 34 of Notification No. 55/95-Cus., so the duty-free exemption applied. The material evidence, including expert opinion, supported use for cannulating peripheral veins and blood vessels, even though it was not for large vessels such as the aorta or vena cavae. A later withdrawal of departmental clarification did not alter the result because the notification did not make that certification a condition for the relevant entry. The exemption therefore remained available on the plain wording of the notification. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:42:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93087 A scalp vein infusion set was treated as a cannula used for blood vessels and brought within Sl. No. 34 of Notification No. 55/95-Cus., so the duty-free exemption applied. The material evidence, including expert opinion, supported use for cannulating peripheral veins and blood vessels, even though it was not for large vessels such as the aorta or vena cavae. A later withdrawal of departmental clarification did not alter the result because the notification did not make that certification a condition for the relevant entry. The exemption therefore remained available on the plain wording of the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93087