TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants are engaged in the manufacture of medical and surgical instruments and appliances. A dispute arose regarding their eligibility for exemption for Intra Venous Cannula (IVC) and Central Venous Catheters (CVC) as per notification no.6/2003-CE as amended, read with notification no.21/2002-customs (List 37, Sl.No.34). The appellant's claim is that these are covered by the entry in the notification viz. "disposable and non-disposable Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for infra-corporal spaces". Various demand notices were issued to the appellants for the periods from August, 2004 to July, 2009. These notices were affirmed along with penalty. Aggrieved by the lower authority's orders, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the lower authority, who relied on such DGHS's opinion. 4. The appellant also contended that the demands in respect of CVC were also not sustainable as they are nothing but different types of cannula. Certain show cause notices covered the demand consequent on denial of exemption to CV Catheters (CVC). 5. The appellants in their appeal relied on the expert's opinion given by doctors to the effect that IVC is inserted into jugular vein, cephalic vein, femoral vein, basilic vein, which are structurally and functionally similar to vena cavae and drained into the same. Finally, it was pleaded that, their case is squarely covered by the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Sabe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and arriving at a conclusion contrary to the same in the case of M/s. Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the Tribunal makes the said order as not binding in nature. It is his argument that the blood vessels similar to aorta and vena cavae are ought to be great or main blood vessel such as pulmonary artery/vein coronary artery/veins. These submissions made by the Revenue was over-looked in M/s. Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd.. He insisted that the IVC in dispute is meant for peripheral blood vessels and are not covered by entry for exemption mentioned supra. 8. We have heard the Special Counsel for the Department and examined the appeal records. 9. First, we take up the case of eligibility of IVC manufactured by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mon knowledge that the circulator system of the body consisted of arteries, veins and capillaries. It is also not disputed that there are different types of arteries and veins and aorta and vena cava are anatomically and physiologically different from smaller peripheral, arteries and veins. If IVC manufactured by the appellants are used in the similar such arteries and veins, the exemption is certainly eligible. The Special Counsel's contention is that only Cannula used in those arteries or veins which are directly connected to the heart and which are similar to aorta or vena cavae are eligible for exemption is not supported when the full scope of the entry is examined, The terms used are ....."Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m exemption as Cannula. 12. We find that there are separate entries in the exemption notification for Cannula and for Catheters of different types. The appellants claim for exemption under entry no.34 in the List 37 of the Notification no.21/2002-Cus is not tenable as the entry talks about only disposable and non-disposable Cannula for various types of blood vessels and intra-corporal spaces. Entry No.33 talks about some specific type of Catheters. Except for claiming that the Catheters manufactured by them can be broadly brought under the category of Cannula, the appellant did not make any corroborative submissions we find that the CVC manufactured by the appellant are meant for delivery of drugs and monitoring of central venous pressur....