Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indica Laboratories Redson

1. the notice issued to the respondent before us proposed to disallow the benefit of the notification 339/86 which exempts intravenous cannulae for long term use on the ground that the cannulae manufactured by the respondent were disposable, and hence not for long use. the asst. collector, whose order has been confirmed by the commissioner(appeals) on an appeal filed by the department, held that after considering medical opinion that the cannulae were for long-term use. hence this appeal.2. the grounds of appeal by the department do not have a word to say about the finding on long-term use. it quotes at length from the judgment of the calcutta high court in trio marketing pvt.ltd.vs. uoi 1992 (57)elt 249. the calcutta high court in this judgment did not consider whether the cannulae before it was for long term use or for use other than long term. there is nothing in that judgment that seems to apply to the facts of the case before us with regard to this aspect.3. we must observe, in passing that the certificates of the medical practitioners, which the ass.commissioner has relied upon, seem to equate the cannula with an infusion set.as we understand it, the cannula is that part of the infusion set which is inserted into the blood vessel(the vein, in the case of an intravenous cannula).the infusion set is the complete kit consisting of the cannula, the tube leading from the container of the fluid that is to be infused, and the container itself.it would not, therefore,be correct to equate the cannula with the infusion set. it is apart of the infusion set.however, this is not a ground in the appeal.