ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 16-1-1991. The appellants imported Sheath and Obtruator and Examining Bridge, White support Loop and Ball Tip Electrode, Albarran Bridge/DC Fin. and Sheath 26FR STD Beak. They claimed benefit of Notification 65/88 which exempted medical equipment from part of customs duty leviable thereon. This claim was rejected by Collector on the ground that what has been imported is not the cystoscope but only parts and parts are not specified in the Notification.
2. The appellants desire decision on merits.
3. Ld. DR reiterates department’s arguments.
4. Considered. The question relates to concessional rate of duty on parts of medical equipment specified in Notification 65/88, dated 1-3-1988. Collector’s observations are extracted below :
“The Notification, no doubt extends benefit of concessional rate of duty to parts/accessories but subject to the condition that they must be classifiable under Tariff Heading 90 and they must be specified in the table annexed. In other words, the benefit of concessional rate of duty is not applicable to all parts/accessories of medical equipment falling under Tariff Heading 90. The benefit is limited to medical equipment, parts/accessories etc. which have been specified in the table annexed to the notification. Since the impugned goods have not been specified in the Table annexed to the Notification, the benefit of concessional rate of duty is not applicable to them.
The impugned order is upheld and appeal rejected.”
5. Notification exempts medical equipment, their accessories and spare parts falling within Chapter 29, 30, 84, 85, 90 or 94 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and specified in the Table annexed to that Notification. Cystoscope is specified against S. No. 48. Collector (Appeals) has recorded that the impugned goods are “parts/accessories” of cystoscope. He has, therefore, held that these are not complete cystoscope itself. What Notification exempts is medical equipment, their accessories and spare parts. In any case Notification 66/88, dated 1-3-1988 places the matter beyond any doubt. This notification exempts the component parts of goods covered by Notification No. 65/88, dated 1st March, 1988, when imported into India for the manufacture of said goods. In other words, components of goods specified in Notification 65/88 are also exempted from duty. The goods admittedly are parts of cystoscope. Being parts of cystoscope, they would in the alternative get exemption under Notification 66/88, dated 1-3-1988.
6. This in fact is what is pleaded by the appellants in their Appeal-memo where they have prayed that assuming without admitting that the goods are not covered by Notification No. 65/88-Cus., these are eligible for benefit of Notification 66/88 inasmuch as the ld. Collector has admitted that the goods are parts of cystoscope falling under S. No. 48 of Notification 65/88. Once we admit that these are parts of cystoscope specified as S. No. 48 of Notification 65/88, they would independently be eligible to concession under Notification 66/88, dated 1-3-1988.
7. For the reasons metioned hereinbefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
