Full Judgment
2. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted by Shri S.V. Nankani, learned Advocate that they had filed technical information before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim that the goods in question fell within the scope of the expression used in the subject exemption notification but the same had not been considered while passing the order. The Additional Collector, it was contended, had taken a narrow view that rehabilitation aids for the handicapped would only extend to articles like crutches and hearing aids and not to items of the present type which are used by orthopaedic surgeons for being implanted in the body of the injured persons to strengthen or support the broken bones. In this connection, it was submitted by Shri Nankani that the author of the Article which has been referred to by the Additional Collector in his order to derive support for his finding had himself clarified by his subsequent letter dated 11-12-1987 addressed to the appellant that under the World Health Organisations usage in regard to the concept of handicap, orthopaedic plants (including screws, plates, nails, hip joints etc.) are used for fixation of broken bones and for correction of incapacitating disabilities of the musculosekletal system and thus they constituted essential aids in the rehabilitation of people handicapped by these disorders. It was contended by Shri Nankani that this certificate as also the certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi that the goods in question or rehabilitation aids for handicapped persons had not been considered. He referred to the definition of the word "rehabilitation" appearing in Law Lexicon by Shri P. Ramanatha Aiyar (1997 Edition) wherein the word has been defined as meaning restoring to former ability. It was his contention that without the use of the subject items the person who is injured seriously in his bones cannot function normally and only by being implanted in the bones would he be able to rehabilitate himself and function under near normal circumstances. It was also pointed out by him that the dispute relates to a small period viz. July 1986 to October 1986 and both before this period as well as afterwards, the same products were being extended the benefit of exemption for duty. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed and orders set aside.
2. Opposing the arguments by the learned Counsel, Shri S. Numthuk, learned DR submitted that the items covered in the exemption notification were artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicaps. He stated that the subject items are not artificial limbs as that would refer to the complete limb itself like hand or arm or leg or foot and not certain implants which are only used at the time of surgery in a hospital by the Orthopaedic surgeons. As regards the other limb of the relevant entry in the exemption notification, namely, rehabilitation aids for the handicapped, he supported the findings of the Additional Collector that it would refer to certain contraption or devices which are used by the handicapped person like crutches or hearing aids and not something which is implanted in his system as a one time measure during surgery. He also referred to the fact that the relevant exemption notification was subsequently amended by the addition of another item, namely parts and components of artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. These parts and components, as the case may be, are to be used within the factory of production in the manufacture of the limbs and aids themselves. This would go to show that items of the type in question were not covered by the exemption notification during the material period. He accordingly pleaded that the appeal be dismissed.
3. The rival submissions have been duly taken note of by us. We have gone through the record particularly the technical information that has been placed before us which had also been submitted by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. The technical opinion given by the Directorate General of Health Services and by Dr. Philip H.N. Wood, the author of the pamphlet which had been referred to and relied on by the adjudicating authority clearly go to show that these implants satisfy the description given in the exemption notification. There is no denial of the said opinion from the technical stand point in the impugned order. We are inclined to accept these opinions and hold that the Additional Collector erred in rejecting the same for denying the benefit of exemption. In a somewhat similar issue dealt with in Collector of Customs, Madras v. Vishal Surgical Equipment reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) it was observed by the Tribunal that against the technical literature and the certificate issued from experts produced by the assessee, Revenue had not led any contrary evidence in support of the claim that the item was not an orthopaedic appliance. A similar approach would be justified in the present case also as the technical certificates produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority clearly pointed to their being the goods mentioned in the exemption notification. These not having been controverted by any expert opinion, the validity of the certificates has to be accepted. On that basis, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.