Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
K. Hargovindas And Co. And Anr. vs Collector Of Customs on 29 June, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989(22)ECR563(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
I.J. Rao (T), Member
1. These four appeals were heard together as they involve common questions and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellants imported goods described as "Hakko Brand Scalp Vein Sets, Sterile Intravenous Cannulae and Tubing for long term use" (description as contained in Orderin-Original reproduced) Clearance of the goods was sought under OGL under the import policy for AM 85 and the benefit of Notification 208/81 was also sought for them. Denying the same, the customs issued show cause notices to the appellants threatening confiscation of the goods and denial of the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22.9.1981. Finally the Collector ordered confiscation of the goods at the same time allowing redemption on payment of fines and also denied the benefit of notification to the imported goods. Hence this appeal.
3. Sh. Sogani, the Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the issue common to all these appeals has been dealt with by the Tribunal and is squarely covered by the Tribunal's order No. 313/88-B2 dated 23.5.1988 in Unival Surgical Traders v. C.C. Cochin.
4. Sh. K. Kumar, the Ld. SDR submitted that he reiterates the contents of Collector's order. He, however, did not deny, on being questioned, that the ratio of the orders cited by Sh. Sogani is applicable to the four appeals before us.
5. We perused the order dated 23.5.1988 in Unital Surgical Traders v. C.C. Cochin (Supra) the goods involved there were also declared as "Hakko Brand Intravenous Cannulae and Tubing for long term use-Infusion set". The goods, therefore, are the same. The same question arose there also. The Tribunal after considering the arguments recorded, inter alia, the following:
We have considered the arguments. We are of the view that the goods imported answers the description of entry "Intravenous Cannulae and Tubing for long term use" at Sr. No. 19 of Schedule B to Notification No. 208-Cus. dated 22.9.1981. As stated above the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has clarified in his letter that the imported goods namely "Scalp Vein Sets" are covered underentry No. 21 of List 2 of Appendix 6 to AM 1985-88. Said entry No. 21 of List 2 of Appendix 6 to AM 1985-88 and entry at Sr. No. 19 of Schedule B of the Notification No. 208-Cus. dated 22.9.1981 are identically worded. Under these circumstances when imported goods namely, 'Scalp Vein Sets' are considered as 'Intravenous Cannulae and Tubing for long term use' for ITC purposes as per the clarification given by the licensing authorities, we think that the benefit of the said Notification under its Sr. No. 19 of Schedule B be not denied to the appellants. From the said two Orders-in- Appeals passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay and Madras (photo copies are on record) we find that these Custom Houses are extended benefit of the No tification in question that is to say, Notification No. 208/81-Cus. In these circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22.9.1981.
6. We see no reason to differ from this order. Following the same, we allow these four appeals and order consequential relief.