Page 205 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] 3M INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I 387

be exempted under various Notifications; the Notifications also exempted from
duty other medical equipment certified by the Director General of Health Ser-
vices to be lifesaving equipment; the Appellants continued to claim concessional
rate of duty in respect of the imported Micropore. Transpore and Tegaderm, un-
der Sl. No. 363 of Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002, as mentioned at Sl.
No. 22 of List 37 of the Notification; the Notification also provided, at Sl. No. 365,
exemption to Lifesaving Equipment subject to production of a certificate from
DGHS to the effect that the imported goods are a lifesaving medical equipment;
vide Notification No. 21/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010, Sl. No. 363 in Notification
No. 21/2002-Cus. along with List 37, was omitted; subsequently, Notification No.
41/2010-Cus., dated 1-4-2010 inserted, Sl. No. 357A and S. No. 35713, providing
concessional rate of duty of 5% for Goods required for medical, surgical, dental
or veterinary use falling under Ch. 9018, 9019, 9020, 9021 or 9022 and for
parts/accessories of the above goods falling under 90 or any other Chapter re-
spectively; vide Notification No. 54/2010-Cus., dated 29-4-2010 exemption to
Ostomy products (Appliances), accessories thereof and parts required for the
manufacture, of the Ostomy products was reintroduced. However, from the in-
clusive list of the products, ‘skin barriers micropore surgical tapes’ was removed;
Appellant is not availing exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. from
27-2-2010.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the issue is settled by the Tri-
bunal by the decision in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. - 2019-VIL-221-CHE-
CU; Tribunal examined the issue whether “Micropore surgical tape”, classifiable
under CTH 3005 90 60, are entitled to exemption Sl. 363(A) of Notification No.
21/2002 dated 1-3-2002; Tribunal held that the Notification apart from covering
specific Ostomy products also covers the general purpose products; therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that surgical tapes imported
by the appellants are an appliance used in managing ostomy cases and hence the
exemption has been rightly claimed; Sl. No. 363(A) of Notification No. 21/2002-
Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as amended from time-to-time, exempted goods specified in
List 37 therein from so much of the duty of Customs leviable thereon under the
First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as is in excess of the amount calculated
at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Table; corre-
spondingly, Sl. No. 61 of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. exempted goods covered
under Sl. No. 363 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and mentioned in List 37 of
the Customs Notification from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon; Medical
Equipment and other goods, specified in List 37 and their accessories were thus
subjected to effective rate of Basic Customs Duty of 5% and wholly exempted
from additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tar-
iff Act. List 37 of the Customs Notification No. 21/2002 had 111 entries out of
which Sl. No. 22 reads as under :
“Ostomy products (Appliances) for managing Colostomy, Ileostomy,
Ureterostomy, Ileal Conduit Urostomy Stoma crises such as bags, belts, ad-
hesives seals or discs or rolls adhesive remover, skin barriers micropore
surgical tapes, bag closing clamps karaya seals paste or powder, irrigation
sets, plastic or rubber faceplates, flanges, male or female Urinary inconti-
nence sets, skin gels in parts or sets’.
Sl. No. 22 of List 37 may be broken up as under :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  205