Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commr. Of Cus. vs Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. Ltd. on 26 April, 2006
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This application filed by the department (appellant) is for stay of operation of the impuened Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the respondent has got the benefit of Notification 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001. The item imported by the respondent is what is called 'Cardiac Stent' which is a device which may be required to be deposited in the artery of Cardiac patient. Medical equipment which is used to deposit Stent in the blood vessel is P.T.C.A. Catheter which is an equipment specified at SI. No. 33 in list No. 29 appended to entry No. 348 in the table annexed to the above Notification. Entry No. 348 ibid granted exemption from payment of duty on medical equipment (excluding certain Catheter other than P.T.C.A. Catheter) and other goods specified in list 29 ibid. It also granted similar exemption in respect of accessories of such medical equipment. The claim of the respondent is that Cardiac Stent is an accessory to P.T.C.A. Catheter. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also held so. According to the appellant, Stent cannot be considered to be an accessory of Catheter, and, as it has not been specified in list No. 29 ibid, benefit of exemption will not be available to it.
2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we have come across a decision of the Tribunal referred to in the impugned Order vide M/s. Boston Scientific International v. Commissioner of Customs wherein Stents imported by that party were held to be accessory to Endoscope. Both sides agree that Endoscope is an equipment used for viewing the site in blood vessel where Stent is required to be deposited. If Stent can be held to be an accessory to the Endoscope, Cardiac Stent in question, for which Catheter was used as carrier as well as depositor can a fortiori be considered to be accessory to the Catheter. The respondent's representative has shown us a recent Notification specifying Cardiac Stent for similar exemption from payment of duty. In view of these aspects, we are inclined to keep the impugned Order in operation till final disposal of the appeal particularly when no judicial authority has been cited by the learned JCDR against grant of exemption to Cardiac Stent used along with P.T.C.A. Catheter.
3. In the result, the present application of the department gets dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)