M/S. Centerpulse India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/943347 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Decided On | Jul-27-2011 |
| Case Number |
Appeal No. C/426/2004 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus.
No.608/2004 dated 30.8.2004 passe |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER |
| Appellant | M/S. Centerpulse India Ltd. |
| Respondent | Commissioner of Customs, Chennai |
| Advocates: | For the Appellants: Smt. Sridevi, Advocate. For the Respondent: T.H. Rao, SDR. |
Excerpt:
.....notification no. 21/2002. 3. we find that the said notification no. 21/02 as amended by notification no. 66/04 as applicable at the relevant time exempts assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in list 41 under sl. no. 370 of the table annexed to the said notification. list 41 referred against sl. no. 370 includes instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instruments and implants including bone cement. the impugned goods being implants meant of joint replacement for persons requiring such replacement are clearly exempted under the impugned notification. without such implants, such persons will be severely handicapped and disabled to function normally. as such, we have no hesitation in.....
Judgment:Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellants imported the impugned consignment “nkII ultra congruent tibial insert (Implants)”. The same has been classified under Heading 90.21 but has been denied exemption under Notification No. 21/2002.
3. We find that the said Notification No. 21/02 as amended by Notification No. 66/04 as applicable at the relevant time exempts assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 41 under Sl. No. 370 of the Table annexed to the said Notification. List 41 referred against Sl. No. 370 includes instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instruments and implants including bone cement. The impugned goods being implants meant of joint replacement for persons requiring such replacement are clearly exempted under the impugned notification. Without such implants, such persons will be severely handicapped and disabled to function normally. As such, we have no hesitation in our mind that the impugned goods are entitled for exemption under the said Notification No. 21/2002. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with consequential benefit if any.