Page 204 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3
P. 204
386 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Ramsons Garments Finishing Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2007 (211) E.L.T. 44 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................. [Para 7]
Share Medical Care v. Union of India — 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Referred ......................... [Para 10]
State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. — 2004 (178) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) — Referred ............. [Para 7]
Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1257 (Tribunal)
— Dissented ...................................................................................................... [Paras 3, 11, 13.2, 26, 29]
Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. Collector — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 505 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................... [Para 28]
West Dinajpur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (203) E.L.T. 474 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1/2005-Cus., dated 11-1-2005 ...................................................................... [Para 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Shivadass, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri J. Harish, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the Re-
spondent.
[Order per : P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of
the case are that M/s. 3M India Ltd, the appellants, a subsidiary of 3M, USA, are
engaged in the import of more than 1000 types of adhesive products including
Surgical Tape Rolls since 1992, from their parent company and its associ-
ates/subsidiaries. The Surgical Tape Rolls with brand names viz., Micropore,
Transpore and Tegaderm Wound Dressings were cleared as ‘skin barriers mi-
cropore surgical tapes’ availing benefit of exemption under Sl. No. 22 of List 37
as mentioned in Sl. No. 363A of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, initiated investigations into the imports
by the Appellant and statements of Shri M.S. Swaminathan, Authorised Signato-
ry of the Appellant and Shri Kulveen Singh Bali, Head, Regulatory Affairs and
Quality Assurance of the Appellants were recorded. A Show Cause Notice dated
30-9-2011, demanding differential duty of Rs. 9,33,25,582, on imported Mi-
cropore, Transpore and Tegaderm, cleared during the period from October 2006
to February 2010. It was alleged that ‘Hypoallergenic Surgical Adhesive Tapes’
(under the brand name micropore, Transpore and Tegaderm), sold as general
purpose medical adhesive tapes, are not ‘ostomy appliances’ for managing the
four types of ostomy; in terms of the exemption Notification concessional rate of
5% BCD and Nil rate of CVD are available only for ‘Skin barrier micropore surgi-
cal tapes’ used as an Ostomy product (appliance) for managing Colostomy, Ileos-
tomy, Ureterostomy, Heal Conduit Urostomy Stoma cases. Learned Commis-
sioner passed the impugned Order-in-Original, 10/2012, dated 14-12-2012, con-
firming duty of Rs. 9,33,25,582 on the appellants along with equal penalty under
Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962; imposing penalties of Rs. 55,00,000 on Shri
M.S. Swaminathan and Rs. 40,00,000 on Shri Kulveen Singh Bali; Hence, the pre-
sent appeals C/25625/2013, C/25676/2013 & C/25677/2013.
2. Shri Shivdass, Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, traces
the history of the exemption for surgical tapes and submits that the Appellants
earlier claimed exemption under Sl. No. 22B of Heading B of Notification No.
208/1981-Cus., dated 22-9-1981, on the strength of certificates dated 15-9-1992 by
the Directorate General of Health Services to the effect that they were Lifesaving
items covered under Sl. No. 22B of Part B of Customs Notification No. 208/1981;
after rescission of Notification No. 208/1981-Cus., the Ostomy products (appli-
ances) for managing Colostomy, Ileostomy, Ureterostomy, Ileal Conduit
Urostomy Stoma, including skin barriers micropore surgical tapes continued to
EXCISE LAW TIMES 1st August 2020 204

