Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
U.G. Hospitals vs Commissioner Of Cus., Acu, New Delhi on 2 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002ECR495(TRI.-DELHI), 2002(144)ELT363(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellants made import of the following items :
(i) Bard Duo Recording System (ii) Micropace Stimulator Model EPD 320 (iii)R.F. Generator Model EPT 1000P
and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 17/01-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 as accessories of Cardiac Vascular Angiography System including Digital Substraction Angiography (CVAS). The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order held that CVAS is essentially a diagnostic equipment whereas the goods imported by the appellants are therapeutic equipment and main functions of the goods, in question, are not within the main function of the CVAS.
2. The value of stimulator was also enhanced on the basis of import of identical equipments by other importers. The adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods on the ground of mis-declaration and penalty was also imposed.
3. The contention of the appellants is that the goods, in question, are accessories of CVAS and they explained the functions of the impugned goods. Appellants also relied upon the technical opinion produced by them before the adjudicating authority specifically opinion was given by the Head of Department of Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi. The contention of the appellants is that this opinion was given at the request of the customs authorities and it was specifically mentioned in the technical opinion that the goods, in question, are accessories of the CVAS. The contention of the appellants is that this technical opinion was not relied upon by the adjudicating authority and without any cogent reason and without any technical opinion, in favour of the Revenue, the adjudicating authority, held that the goods, in question, are not accessories of the CVAS.
4. In respect of enhancement of the value of stimulator, the contention of the appellants is that there is no evidence on record to show that the import made by other importer is of the same model which was imported by the appellants. In respect of mis-declaration, the contention of the appellants is that in the bills of entry, the appellants gave correct description of the goods and with bonafide intention claimed the benefit of notification. The allegation of mis-declaration on the part of the appellants is unsustainable.
5. Heard Id. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the goods are not accessories of the CVAS.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The appellants made import of the medical equipments and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 17/01-Cus. The relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below :
"348 90 or any other Chapter The following goods Nil __ (A) Medical equipment (excluding Foley Ba-loon Catheters) and other goods, specified in List 29;
(B) Accessories of the medical equipment at (A) above Nil __ List
29. (64)
Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System including Digital Substrac-tion Angiography."
8. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the goods, in question, are accessories of CVAS. The functions of the goods, in question as explained by the appellants, are as below :
"(a) Bard Duo Recording System This is an equipment to monitor, amplify and record the intra cardiac activity during the Angiography procedures /studies carried out on Cardiac Vascular Angiography System including DSA.
(b) Micropace stimular Model EPD 320 :
This equipment is used for introducing cardiac stimuli to induce the patient's tachycerdia in the treatment of the threatening arrhythmia with the help of Cardiac Vascular Angiography System including DSA.
(c) R.F. Generator Model EPT 1000P This is an equipment for generating radio frequency energy to ablate/burn tissues causing blockade in the cardiac system detected during Angiography procedure/study through Cardiac Vascular Angiography System including DSA."
9. In support of their claim, appellants produced technical expert's opinion by way of certificate issued by Dr. Mohan Nair, Prof. (Cardiology), G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi. In his opinion, the goods in question, are integral part of the Angiography System. The appellants also produced Dr. Rajeev Lochan, Senior Consultant, Cardiology, Indraprastha Appollo Hospital and Dr. Mohan Nair, Prof. (Cardiology), G.B. Pant Hospital before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim. The certificate issued by M/s.
Siemens, the manufacturer of the CVAS, describes the goods, in question, as accessories of the CVAS. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter in August, 2001 to the Medical Supdt., AIIMS, New Delhi, asking for technical opinion and in response to this letter, Dr. S.C. Manchanda, Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi, specifically mentioned that the goods, in question, are accessories of the CVAS. The Revenue has not produced any technical opinion/literature in support of their claim that the goods, in question, are not accessories of CVAS. In view of the technical opinion, specifically given by the Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi, we hold that the goods, in question, are accessories of the CVAS and the appellants are entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 17/01-Cus. As the notification provides nil rate of duty to the goods, in question, hence without going into other issues raised by the appellants, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.