Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Until next date, adjudication of show cause notice should not be proceeded with."

14. Mr. Shah has contended that in the petitioner's own case, in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Anr 1, the issue of classification was subject matter of adjudication, when the Court had considered that in the context of a show cause notice which was challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner had relied on the decision in Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2 wherein it was held that the goods Glucometers consisting of Glucometer, test strips, Lancet device and user guide will get classified under 9027 and not under 9018, which was binding on the adjudicating authority. The petitioner also contended that they were incorporated in India in line with the global arrangement for sale between Bayer and Panasonic, and therefore, Bayer (supra) was the petitioner's own case. It is in such context that the Court delved on the issue of classification. The Court entertain the Writ Petition, rejecting the respondents contention on alternate remedy and considered the issues whether the Glucometer would be classified under item 9018 or 9027, as already considered by the tribunal. It was also held that an 1 2022 (11) TMI 871 Bombay High Court 2 2016 (331) E.L.T. 317 09 April 2026 Kiran Kawre 7-WP-14082-2024.DOC appeal to CESTAT against the impugned order would be an idle formality. Since the issue was already concluded by the tribunal, on this ground alone, it was opined that the impugned order on the show cause notice was required to be quashed and set aside. The relevant observations made by the Court in that regard are required to be noted which reads thus:

5. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice and submitted that the goods were in fact classifiable under chapter 9027. Petitioner also submitted that Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai1 has held that these goods, i.e., Glucometers consisting of Glucose meter, test strips, Lancet device and user guide will get classified under heading 9027 and not under 9018, which is binding on the adjudicating authority. It was also brought to the notice that even the Appellate Authority in another matter had accepted that Glucometer will get classified under 9027 and not 9018. It is pertinent to mention that Petitioner even clarified to the adjudicating authority that Bayer AG, Germany sold its entire diabetes care business to Panasonic Healthcare, Japan. Panasonic Healthcare, Japan for the acquisition of diabetes care business formed a new company named Ascensia Diabetes Care across the world including India. Accordingly, Petitioner was formed by Panasonic in India to acquire diabetes care business in India. Petitioner was incorporated in India on 5th November, 2015 in line with the global arrangement for sale between Bayer and Panasonic. Mr. Dada therefore submitted that the Bayer (supra) was in Petitioner's own case.
6. Mr. Dada further submitted that judicial discipline would require that Respondent No.2 had followed the ruling of CESTAT in Bayer (supra) since ratio laid down by CESTAT in Bayer (supra) was binding on the Department.
7. The fact in Bayer (supra) were identical to the case at hand and the short 09 April 2026 Kiran Kawre 7-WP-14082-2024.DOC Judgment in Bayer (supra), for ease of reference, is reproduced herein;

9. We are inclined to reject this submission of Mr. Mishra on alternate remedy because Respondent No.2 has not even examined the merits of the case when there was a binding order of CESTAT in the case ofBayer (supra). Having considered the judgment of Bayer (supra), relegating Petitioner to exercise its alternate remedy would be a mere exercise in formality when CESTAT has already passed well considered order in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction in Petitioner's own case. As the Tribunal has already expressed its views in an identical matter and has classified the Glucometer under 9027, an Appeal to CESTAT against impugned order would be a mere idle formality.