w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Muljibhai Patel Society For Research V/S Commissioner of Customs (Import)

    Appeal No. C/38/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 510/2007/MCH/ADDL/Gr.VB, Dated: 23.10.2007 Passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I) and Order No. A/89923/17/CB

    Decided On, 26 September 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Anil Balani, Advocate And For Respondents: M.K. Mall, AC (AR)

Judgment Text

1. Appellant's claim is that the goods came to India through Bill of entry No. 6515 dated 7.4.1988 was 'Haemodialysis Water Purifier System' and that is eligible to the customs duty exemption under Notification No. 64/88 dated 1.3.88 under Sr. No. 16 thereof. The said Sr. No. reads as under:-

"16 84.21 Go

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

od falling under sub-heading Nos. 8421.11, 8421.12, 8421.12, 8421.19, 8421.21, 8421,22 filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids other than fuel filters for internal combustion piston engines, filtering and purifying machinery and apparatus to gases other than air filters, and electrostatic precipitators, designed for industrial use."

In the Bill of Entry, the goods was declared to enjoy the exemption under Notification No. 64/88 dated 1.3.1988 declaring classification thereof under CTH 8421.21. But, subsequently appellant pleaded that it is governed by Notification No. 70/81-Cus dated 26.3.1981. However, appellant is not prevented by law to seek appropriate classification thereof, following the principle laid down in Share Medical Care vs. Union of India : 2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC) at a subsequent stage of the proceeds being usable for the purpose of purification of dialysis equipment, the appellant is entitled to exemption. Further, it being a research institute, in terms of page 62 and 63 of the appeal folder, the benefit under Notification No. 64/88 should be granted.
2. Revenue denies above claim of appellant on the ground of non-fulfilment of exemption Notification conditions.

3. Heard both sides and also perused the copies of respective documents to which our attention was drawn by the appellant. Page 66 of the appeal folder claiming exemption does not reveal anything. It is not explained whether the goods imported was anyway relevant for the purpose of Haemodialysis equipment in medical sense. Appellant's claim would have been considered as research institute under Notification No. 70/81-Cus. But, primary condition of the Notification is that a certificate recognizing the institute a research institute ought to have been obtained by appellant from an officer not below the rank of Under Secretary of the Administrative Ministry to the effect that imported goods will be utilized for research, was not fulfilled. Appellant drew our attention to page no. 60 and 61 of appeal folder, which is related to the application of the appellant for the purpose of Income Tax benefit. Each law serve their own purpose. That has no relevance to the present claim. So far as the plea of research institute is concerned, in absence of proper certificate from the authority, that is not considerable at this stage. There is no difference to the proposition of law that appellant has right to claim the exemption in accordance with the evidence on record following the Apex Court judgment cited above. But in so far as the appellant's plea that goods was usable for the purpose of research as a water purifier is not substantiated from any document issued by a Public Authority. The medical equipment claimed to have been used for life saving of patients cannot be casually dealt by appellant for misplaced sympathy. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed

Already A Member?