TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9018 of CETA, 1985. The appellants were clearing their products on payment of appropriate duty of excise, however, the I.V. Cannulas (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods) were exempted under Notification No.6/2002 dated 01/03/2002, after amendment vide Notification No.6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003, read with Notification No.21/2002-CU dated 01/03/2002 and continued to be exempted under such similar Notification No.6/2006-CE. The dispute arose whether the subject goods fall within the scope of the term "Disposable and non-disposable cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for intra-corporal spaces". Earlier exemption was available on the import of the goods falling under the above description as pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... details about the subject goods like quantity, value etc. Show cause notice dated 19.02.2008 was issued proposing to deny the benefit of the Notification and to demand duty on the goods cleared during the period from March, 2003 to 05.02.2007. 2. The show cause notice was contested and adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 14/07/2008 and the proposed demand of Rs. 2,16,63,478/- was confirmed after giving the cum duty benefit alongwith equal penalty. Further, penalty of Rs. 10 Iacs was imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Khanna, Director. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee and the Director is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants urges that the issue is no longer res Integra. The issue regarding the coverag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....squarely covered by the precedent orders of this Tribunal in Eastern Medikit Ltd. and Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd (supra). We quote the findings from the precedent decision in the case of Eastern Medikit Ltd. (supra) as follows "9. First, we take up the case of eligibility of IVC manufactured by the appellant for exemption under entry no.34 of List 37 of notification no.21/2002-Cust read with notification no.6/2003-CE. A similar matter came up recently for decision before this Tribunal in the case of M/S. Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal examined at length the scope of entry at S.No.34 mentioned above and came to the conclusion that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. (su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;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 veins and blood vessels......". This Tribunal held in the cases decided supra that the term "blood bessels" is to be taken independently. We follow the reasoning as the term "blood vessel" is preceded by a second 'and'. If Id. Special Counsel's plea is to be accepted the wordings could have been "canula for aorta, vena cavae, similar veins and blood vessels". This is not the case. As pointed out in M/s. Becton Dickinson case, t....