Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Bangalore Customs vs India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. on 1 April, 2026

                                                            C/20742/2023



     CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
                    TRIBUNAL
                   BANGALORE

                  REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1

                Customs Appeal No. 20742 of 2023
       (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 815/2022 dated 31.03.2022
       passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru.)




Commissioner of Customs,                                   Appellant(s)
Airport & ACC Commissionerate,
Devanahalli, Bengaluru.

                                  VERSUS

M/s. India Medtronic Private
Limited
Awfis Space Solutions, No. 143/1, 3rd                   Respondent(s)

Floor, Gemini Circle, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 03.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant Mr. Tarun Jain, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 20473 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 01.04.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 01.04.2026 PER : DR. D.M. MISRA This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. 815/2022 dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru.

C/20742/2023

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent had imported goods declaring the same as Covid Relief Material against Bill of Entry No. 3946653 and Bill of Entry No. 3949586 both dated 14.05.2021. The goods included 100 ventilators and 200 Condensate Vials. At the time of clearance of goods from Customs, the appellant had not claimed exemption from IGST as allowed under Ad hoc Exemption Order No.04/2021-Cus dated 03.05.2021 in the respective bills of entry. However, they filed appeal against the assessment order before the learned Commissioner (Appeal), who has allowed the benefit of the Ad- hoc Exemption Order No.04/2021-Cus dated 03.05.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before us.

3. At the outset the learned AR for the Revenue submits that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not given any reasoning nor examined the admissibility of the benefit of the said Ad-hoc Exemption order dated 03.05.2021; but by a cryptic order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent taking the letter dated 03.06.2021 of the Government of Karnataka; therefore, the order is not sustainable. He has submitted that the matter be remanded to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to pass detailed / reasoned order.

4. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent submits that all related documents in support of their claim of Ad hoc Exemption Order No.04/2021-Cus dated 03.05.2021 filed before the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority. He submits that they are eligible for the benefit of the said Ad-hoc Exemption Order in substantial compliance with all the conditions. He has no objection to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner(Appeals).

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

C/20742/2023

6. The short question involved in the present appeal for consideration is, whether the respondent are entitled to benefit of the Ad hoc Exemption Order No.04/2021-Cus dated May 3, 2021. Undisputedly, the benefit of the said notification was not claimed by the respondent while filing the Bills of Entry with the Customs Department. However, later before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) while challenging the assessed Bills of Entry, they claimed the benefit of the said notification. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the respondent that they have produced sufficient evidences before both the authorities below substantiating the admissibility of the said notification. The grievance of the Revenue on the other hand is that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not examined any of the evidences nor analysed the conditions of the exemption notification but simply allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. It is their contention that the respondent has not complied with the conditions of the notification; therefore, the benefit of the same notification need not be allowed to them.

7. On going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not recorded any reasons while allowing the appeal of the respondent. We find that the order is cryptic and devoid of reasoning; hence, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla & Brothers [2010(254) ELT 6 (SC)]. However, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to consider the admissibility of the benefit of the said Notification vis-à-vis documents filed by the respondent and the objections raised by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal. All issues are kept open. Needless to Page 3 of 4 C/20742/2023 mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the respondent. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Order dictated and pronounced in Open Court.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Gb/Raja...