Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Centerpulse India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 27 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. C/426/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.608/2004 dated 30.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Centerpulse India Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Smt. Sridevi, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 27.07.2011 Date of Decision: 27.07.2011 Final Order No. ____________ Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides.
2. The appellants imported the impugned consignment nkII ultra congruent tibial insert (Implants). The same has been classified under Heading 90.21 but has been denied exemption under Notification No. 21/2002.
3. We find that the said Notification No. 21/02 as amended by Notification No. 66/04 as applicable at the relevant time exempts assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 41 under Sl. No. 370 of the Table annexed to the said Notification. List 41 referred against Sl. No. 370 includes instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instruments and implants including bone cement. The impugned goods being implants meant of joint replacement for persons requiring such replacement are clearly exempted under the impugned notification. Without such implants, such persons will be severely handicapped and disabled to function normally. As such, we have no hesitation in our mind that the impugned goods are entitled for exemption under the said Notification No. 21/2002. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with consequential benefit if any.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced
in court on 27.7.2011)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3