TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. Each appeal is with respect to a separate Bill of Entry filed by M/s QIAGEN India Pvt. Ltd. during the period from September 2023 to February 2024 as detailed below: S. No. Appeal No. Bill of Entry No. BOE Date 1. C/51619/2025 7659065 03.09.2023 2. C/51620/2025 8120356 03.10.2023 3. C/51621/2025 8319149 16.10.2023 4. C/51622/2025 7767856 11.09.2023 5. C/51623/2025 8440832 23.10.2023 6. C/51624/2025 8925290 24.11.2023 7. C/51625/2025 3677605 27.05.2024 8. C/51626/2025 3465457 13.05.2024 9. C/51627/2025 4504256 15.07.2024 10. C/51628/2025 4461031 12.07.2024 11. C/51629/2025 9974091 04.02.2024 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication are that M/s QIAGEN [The appellant] is a wholly owned subsidiary of QIAGEN Germany and is engaged in importation and supply of diagnostic reagents, kits and instruments for medical testing. Vide the impugned Bills of Entry, the appellant imported QFT+Tubes classifying those under Custom Tariff Heading 3002 9020 (animal blood prepared for diagnostic uses) availing 5% of concession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned departmental representative further submitted that it is respondent's/importers own admission that QFT Tubes and ELISA kits were imported under different Bills of Entry at different time. The said admission itself falsifies the applicability of the impugned notification benefit to the impugned imports. The exemption was available to the ELISA kits as such not for any fits component. The functional interdependence in end use has wrongly been substituted for the requirement of importing goods as a composite kit for claiming exemption. The said interpretation has rendered the exemption structure meaningless. 5. Learned DR further submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Share Medical Care vs. Union of India reported as 2007 TIOL 26 S.C. is mentioned to have been wrongly relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals). In the said case, the Hon'ble Court had dealt with the question of whether an applicant can seek benefits under a different exemption category after failing under another. The Supreme Court directed reconsideration under an alternative category. Whereas in the present case, there is no alternative category. The present case is about extending the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed concerns regarding the classification and claim of exemption with respect to QFT Tubes classifying them under CTH 3822. It is submitted that despite that the importer has accepted the said classification but the exemption benefit was still permissible to the imports because chapter 38 got covered under entry at Serial No. 100 of the amended Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025 seen from that point also the impugned goods are eligible for the exemption benefit. 9. It is further submitted that the settled position of law is that the items which are integral part of the complete goods must be granted the benefit which is available to the complete goods. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Bhat Balotach India Pvt Ltd reported as 2012 SCC online CESTAT 3445. The Commissioner (Appeals) is mentioned to have correctly interpreted the exemption notification while allowing the benefit thereof with respect to QFT tubes. The exemption provisions are otherwise to be liberally construed in terms of the object sought to be achieved as it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Kerala vs. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Indo International Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. reported as (1981) 2 SCC 528 and later in the case of Asian Paints India Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise reported as (1988) SCC 470 has held that the terms used in the statute are based on the understanding of those dealing with the said goods. Thus if a specific scientific meaning had been intended. The statute would have included and explicit definition to that effect. 14. The relevant para is as follows: "It is well-settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expression used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted.....