https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252424 An exemption entry covering both instruments and implants was construed according to its plain language, so the view that only implantable goods could qualify was rejected. Eligibility nevertheless depended on proving that the goods were in fact orthopaedic instruments for severely physically handicapped patients or for joint replacement and spinal procedures. Because the product literature on record was insufficient to establish that specialised use, the matter required fresh consideration with an opportunity to produce expert evidence, including affidavits from orthopaedic surgeons or hospitals. The exemption claim was therefore left open pending reconsideration. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252424 An exemption entry covering both instruments and implants was construed according to its plain language, so the view that only implantable goods could qualify was rejected. Eligibility nevertheless depended on proving that the goods were in fact orthopaedic instruments for severely physically handicapped patients or for joint replacement and spinal procedures. Because the product literature on record was insufficient to establish that specialised use, the matter required fresh consideration with an opportunity to produce expert evidence, including affidavits from orthopaedic surgeons or hospitals. The exemption claim was therefore left open pending reconsideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252424