1989 (2) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms, Bombay (Appeal No. CD (SS) A. No. 437/84-C) and by a judgment dated 29th of June 1984, the Tribunal held that Foley Balloon Catheters are covered by the expression "suction catheters" and are, therefore, eligible for duty exemption as per the notification referred to above. There are in fact two notifications. One is Notification No. 208/81 dated 22nd of September 1981 and another is Notification No. 265/82 dated 30th of November 1982. While so holding, the CEGAT took into account the opinion given by the Director General of Health Services. The opinions of other persons who could speak with some authority on the subject were also before the CEGAT when it passed the said order. This view of the CEGAT was followed by the Tribunal in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... challenged. Mr. Sethna, the learned Advocate appearing for the customs authorities, contends that in view of the order passed by Bharucha, J. in Writ Petition No. 1108 of 1988, which is confirmed by the Appellate Bench, one must proceed on the basis that the view expressed by CEGAT in its order dated 29th of June 1984 is no longer good law. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the view taken by the Customs authorities, their remedy is to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. They cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I am reluctant to accept this submission of Mr. Sethna for two reasons. The first is that subsequent to the order of Bharucha, J., this Court has passed orders in several....