TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in-Original No.CC/NK/10/2024-25/ADJ.(GEN.)/ACC dated 22.7.2025 (herein after, referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below: 2.2. The appellants herein are engaged in import of medical devices/ equipment and their parts, accessories, components of such instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences. Some of the goods in regular import is of 'AMICUS Platelet Kit FC SN W/PAS Luer (U6R2301)' and similar items which are accessories of Cell Separator, an equipment used for blood component collection and for performing therapeutic procedures. During the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(o) ibid as well as for imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 112(a)/114A ibid. 2.3 In adjudication of the said SCN as per Notification No.29/2024Customs (N.T.) dated 24.04.2025, the Commissioner of Customs has passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 in confirming all proposals made in the SCN. Feeling aggrieved with the said impugned order of the Commissioner, the appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants stated that the entire case of misclassification and resultant demand of IGST at a higher rate is arising from interpretation of the relevant entry under Notification No. 01/ 2017-IT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 in which the impugned goods are to be covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR, he has submitted a letter dated 01.09.2026 signed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CRAC, NS-V, JNCH representing the office of Mumbai Customs Zone-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, that the issue regarding the correct classification of medical device parts under CTH 9018 versus CTH 9033 has been duly re-examined in the light of the Tribunal's findings in the case of Baxter India Private Limited and the said order of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2026 has been formally accepted by the Competent Authority. 5. We have heard both the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department and perused the case records and the synopsis given in the form of written submissions. 6. We find that the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try under CTH 9033 is the residual entry for covering those parts and accessories, which are not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter 90, under the residuary entry of that chapter. This is also evident from the guidance provided under Chapter Note No.2 to Chapter 90 for proper classification of parts and accessories falling under this Chapter. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned goods being parts and accessories suitable for use in the kidney dialysis apparatus are classifiable under CTH 9018 and not under CTH 9033. 7.3 We also find that the Ministry of Finance vide Circular dated 11.10.2019 had clarified the applicability of IGST/GST rates on various goods including the items under dispute in the present case. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar kind of machine, instruments or apparatus, or with a number of machines, instruments or apparatus of the same heading (including a machine, instrument or apparatus of heading 9010, 9013 or 9031) are to be classified with the machines, instruments or apparatus of that kind;" 9.4 Thus, as per chapter note 2(b), parts of ophthalmic equipment suitable for use solely or principally with an ophthalmic equipment should be classified with the ophthalmic equipment only and shall attract 12%. 9.5 In view of the above, it is clarified that 12% IGST would be applicable on the parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with a medical device falling under heading 9018, 9019, 9021 or 9022 in terms of chapter note 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al character of final product. Revenue has not brought forward any such evidence. Further, CBIC issued clarification which is reproduced in foregoing paragraph. The said clarification relies on Chapter Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 and the same is binding on departmental officers. We, therefore, hold that both the impugned orders are not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside both the impugned orders and allow both the appeals. Appellants shall have consequential relief as per law." 8.2 In an appeal preferred by the department against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal vide Civil Appeal Nos. 1545-1546 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgement dated 15.03.2024 has dismissed the civil appeal of the department and observing that th....