Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) on 2 January, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. C/S/2813/12
IN APPEAL NO. C/553 and 1222 of 2012 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 154(Gr.IIB)/2012 (JNCH) IMP-136 dated 21.03.2012 and 434(GR.IIB-F)/2012(JNCH)/ IMP-376 dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s. Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Nhavasheva
Respondent
Appearance
Shri N.D. George, Advocate
for appellant
Shri K.S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.)
for respondent
CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing : 02.01.2013
Date of Decision : 02.01.2013
ORDER NO.
Per : P.R. Chandrasekharan
There are two appeals and a stay application filed against Orders-in-Appeals No. 154(Gr.IIB)/2012 (JNCH) IMP-136 dated 21.03.2012 and 434(GR.IIB-F)/2012(JNCH)/ IMP-376 dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva. As the issue involved in these appeals is common, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal.
2. In Appeal No. C/553/12, the appellant M/s. Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd., filed a Bill of Entry No. 3140295 dated 13.04.2011 for import of a consignment of Micropore Surgical Tape (Medi Tape Type 300) claiming the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The appellant claimed that they are eligible for a concessional duty of 5% basic customs duty + Nil CVD. The goods were assessed at 5% basic + 5% CVD, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The appellant claimed that the item under import should be considered as accessories to surgical need such as Catheters and Cannulae and, therefore, they should be given the benefit of Nil CVD under Sl. No. 59 of the Table annexed to the Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 which grants duty exemption to the parts and accessories of goods of headings No.9018 and 9019. The lower appellate authority held that the goods under importation are not accessories but are pharmaceutical goods falling under Chapter 30 and, therefore, benefit of CVD exemption would not be available and, accordingly, rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.03.2012.
2.1 In Appeal No. C/1222/12, the appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 4528523 dated 02.09.2011 claiming benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus [Sl.No.357 B(ii)] and CVD exemption under Notification No.6/2006 [Sl. No. 59 (ii)] claiming the goods under importation as accessories of medical equipment falling under headings No. 9018 and 9019. The benefit was denied and the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who rejected the appeal. Hence, the appellant is before us.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the goods under importation is a Micro Porous Hypoallergenic Tapes suitable for surgical dressings and for fixation of medical devices such as Catheters and, therefore, they should be considered as accessories to the medical equipment and accordingly they are eligible for CVD exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE [Sl.No.59(i)] and basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus [Sl.No.357B (ii)].
4. The learned Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and prays for upholding the impugned order.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As the issue is in a narrow compass, after dispensing with the requirement of any pre-deposit, we take up the appeals for consideration.
5.1 It will be relevant at this juncture to consider the wordings of the relevant Notification. Extracts from the said Notification are reproduced herein below:-
S.No.
Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule
Description of excisable goods
Rate
Condition No.
59.
9018 or 9019 or 9022
(i) Parts and accessories of goods of headings 9018 and 9019
(ii) Parts and accessories of apparatus for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use, falling under heading 9022
Nil
---
From the above it can be seen that CVD exemption under Sl.No. 59(i) is available to parts and accessories of the goods of heading Nos. 9018 and 9019 provided such goods are classifiable under CTH 9018 or 9019 or 9022. In the Bills of Entry filed, the appellant has classified the goods under CTH 3005 9060 which deals with pharmaceutical goods. In fact, the said entry specifically covers Microporous Surgical Tapes which are the goods under importation. Obviously the said goods cannot fall under CTH 9018, 9019 or 9022. Accordingly, the benefit of CVD exemption will not be available to the goods under importation and we hold accordingly.
5.2 As regards the claim of the appellant for benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus [Sl.No.357B (ii)], the relevant extracts of the said Notification are reproduced below:-
Sl.
No. Chapter or Heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Stan-dard rate Addi-tional duty rate Con-dition No. 357A 9018, 9019, 9020, 9021 or 9022 Goods required for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use 5%
-
-
357B 90 or any other Chapter
(i) Parts required for the manufacture of the goods at S.No.357A; and
(ii) Accessories of the goods at S.No.357A.
5% 5%
-
5-1 To be eligible for exemption under this Notification, the goods should be accessories of the goods specified under Sl. No. 357A which are the goods required for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use. Obviously the medical tapes which are under importation are not medical equipment covered under Chapter 90 and they are specifically covered under CTH 3005 1960 as pharmaceutical goods such as wading gauzes, bandages and similar articles required for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes. To be considered as accessories of the medical equipment, they should aid the functioning of the medical equipment or improve the efficiency of the medical equipment. The goods under importation is a pressure sensitive adhesive tape used to hold a dressing on to a wound. It is a general purpose surgical tape as can be seen from the product catalogue. It can also be used for fixing or holding surgical needle or catheters etc. Thus the tape in no way improves the efficiency of the medical equipment or aid in its functioning. It merely holds the needle to the skin because of the adhesive nature of the tape. Therefore, it cannot be considered as accessories of the medical equipment referred to in CTH 9018 to 9022.
6. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in these appeals and accordingly, they are dismissed. The stay application is also disposed of.
(Pronounced in open Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) nsk 6