Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Vishal Surgical Equipment on 11 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(88)ELT655(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This revenue appeal is directed against order dated 28-3-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. The appellants imported Redi Vac Wound Suction apparatus. These were assessed by Customs Authorities under CTH 9018.39. The appellants claimed assessment under CTH 90.21 read with Customs Notification 311/86. In this appeal, Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that the impugned goods were orthopaedic appliance and would merit classification under 90.21.
3. Arguing for the revenue ld. DR submits that impugned goods are used in surgery and they can be classified only as appliance. These are only supportive for surgical operatus.
4. None appeared for the respondents when the matter was called.
5 We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The literature placed in the file indicates that:
"In certain operations perfect haemostasis is impossible. This applies to orthopaedic surgery when the bone marrow is exposed or when the operation involves extensive division of mascular tissue, and also vascular surgery when the patient is anti coagulated during the procedure".
It further adds that in reconstructive vascular surgery of the lower limb and following amputations for obliterative arterial disease, by using suction drainage it is possible to dispense with pressure dressings. There is a certificate from Dr. Daraisamy, M.S Ortho certifying that Redi vac wound closure belongs to Orthopaedic appliances. Another certificate from Prof. S. Soondarapandian, M.S. (Gen.), M.S. (Ortho), Addl. Orthopaedic Surgeon, Govt. General Hospital, Madras indicates that 'Redivac' is used in Orthopaedic Surgery for suction of wounds. It is one of the Orthopaedic surgical instrument. Another certificate from the same person indicates that "Redivac" is used after most of the operations in the hip, forearm, arm, leg etc. to drain excess blood in the wound. We also find that suppliers' invoice describes the impugned goods as 'six cartons' of fracture equipment. The bill of entry also describes the goods under heading as Orthopaedic Appliances (Fracture Equipment). As against the technical literature and the certificate from Experts revenue have not led contrary any evidence in support of the claim that it is not a Orthopaedic Appliances. Considering the evidence on record, therefore we are satisfied that the impugned goods are Orthopaedic appliances. We also note that Collector (Appeals) in his order has recorded that suppliers are manufacturers of orthopaedic equipment and the goods were assessed under Heading 90.21 in past. There has been no rebuttal to this from the revenue.
6. In the result, for the reasons mentioned herein before, we do not see any merit in the revenue appeal and therefore, we reject the revenue appeal and uphold the impugned order.