Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (8) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(NS-V), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva, is to the finding that 'medical grade monitor' is not separately enumerated for the purpose of 'rate of duty' under Customs Act, 1962 and that any monitor, irrespective of intended use or technical specification, is liable to be classified within heading 8529 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The claim of the importer is that amenability to use in the medical world permits the impugned goods to be classified against heading 9018 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. The impugned goods had been imported against 56 bills of entry filed between 2nd April 2016 and 9th January 2019 claiming the benefit of notification no. 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 (at serial ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iance having medical functions' before going on to suggest that, in terms note 2(a) in chapter 90 to the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, parts and accessories which are classifiable under a specific heading did not merit classification with the articles to which it would be connected. 3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned goods, having been imported for supply to hospitals and medical establishments and deployed in conjunction with equipment to which patients would be connected for display of medical parameters, were not ordinary monitors. It was also submitted that recourse to a residuary heading even as the impugned goods were so obviously connected with medical diagnosis was not in accordance with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... multiple usage would not deny coverage of microscope as surgical instrument and of the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - III v. Bausch and Lomb Eyecare India Pvt Ltd [2017 (355) ELT 556 (Tr.-Del.)] that a medical device is one that is used by the medical fraternity. 5. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that 'monitor' of every kind is covered by heading 8528 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and that, by no stretch, would such goods be classifiable with instruments and appliances of heading 9018 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 6. On a careful consideration of the records, we find that the show cause notice proposed that the description corresponding to tariff item 8528 5900 of Fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riff employs for purposes other than as sub-heading or tariff. Hence, the decision cited by Learned Counsel on inapplicability of residual tariff line does not apply to facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the goods are 'monitors' but the claim of the appellant that the goods fall within the ambit of medical equipment is. In the light of the comprehensiveness of the adopted heading to discredit, summarily enough, the claim of the appellant that residuary entry within a heading intended for instruments and appliances is more specific, we see no reason to disturb the classification proposed in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order. 8. We, however, find that the impugned order has traversed beyond the show cause ....