2019 (4) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umatic needled Sutures" manufactured by the appellant. The appellant claimed the classification of these goods under Chapter heading 9018. Goods covered by Chapter heading 9018 are eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 8% as per the Notification No.10/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006. The Department was of the view that the goods manufactured by the appellant were not classifiable under Chapter heading 9018, but were to be classified under Chapter heading 3006 and hence liable for payment of duty @ 16%. By issue of show-cause notice dt. 06/02/2008, the Department proposed to demand the differential duty. The original authority upheld the differential duty and the same was not interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the earlier period. The Tribunal held that the goods are rightly classifiable under CETA 9018 and entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.10/2006 dt. 01/03/2006. The Tribunal's observation is reproduced below:- 8. We have considered the submissions. There is no classification dispute for the period 1-3-2003 to 28-2- 2006 covered by the first show-cause notice. For this period, the only issue to be considered is whether the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of 'Nil' rate of duty under Sl. No. 267 of the table annexed to Notification 6/02 (as amended). Though the assessee claimed the benefit of 'Nil' rate of duty in terms of Sl. No. 268 in the reply to the show-cause notice, their counsel has,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ures were mentioned at Sl. No. 4 in the Schedule appended to Notification No. 339/86-C.E., whereunder the manufacturer claimed exemption from payment of duty. The question arose before the apex court as to whether the sutures manufactured by the company could be held to be a 'surgical appliance' classifiable under Heading 90.18. The Counsel for the Revenue had argued that the needle along with suturing material could not be said to be a surgical appliance classifiable under Heading 90.18 inasmuch as the suturing material stood specifically covered by Note 3 of Chapter 30 to be classified under Heading 30.05 as "pharmaceutical goods not elsewhere specified". The apex court rejected the contention and held that, if the needle by itself fell w....