Page 214 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

396 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

tape for double security w/filter for odor control, soft backing for comfort,
order proof film”. Further, it is observed from various patents detailed in
the SCH that medical requirement of protecting the peristomal region from
right around the stoma to the nearby surrounding skin from stomal exu-
dates has been addressed by the products with pre-attached adhesive mi-
croporous tapes with the pouches/bags. In response, the noticee has con-
tended that the new invention which is claimed by the manufacturer as ca-
pable of acting both as skin barrier and as porous paper tape and the claim
that it protects peristomal skin does not mean that the adhesive tapes need
not be used for securing the pouch. They have also stated that there is no
evidence that whole world of ostomates have stopped using other products
or that the earlier products have lost their relevance and use. I find that
there is a contradiction inherent in the submission of the noticee-tape’ and
on the other hand it is their contention that even if it is a new invention, it
does not mean that the earlier products have lost their usage/relevance.
Further, the patent applied for the so called new product dates back to 1997
and was, therefore, in existence for about 10 years before the imports in
question. In view of this, I am unable to agree with the noticee that the de-
scription in notification is a typographical error and that the notification is,
therefore, available to ‘skin barriers’ and ‘surgical tapes’ as two distinct
goods.
20. We find that the SCN establishes the existence of a product known
as “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes”. The Learned authorised representa-
tive has demonstrated both the items and presented the pictorial representations
of the same. He avers that MICROPORE is a paper based tape, whereas
Transpore is a Polymer based tape with micro porous properties which allows
the tape to breathe; but do not act as Skin Barriers; it is only when combined with
Skin Barriers that such tapes would fall within the ambit of the entry in the Ex-
emption Notification. He also submits that while Micropore Tapes might have
been developed by the Appellant, their primary use or application is to act as
adhesive tapes; being hypoallergenic (less prone for allergic reactions) and caus-
ing no painful peeling off sensation like the earlier cloth based tapes, the prod-
ucts are marketed and are being practically used for these purposes of holding
bandages/dressings and tubes or even the colostomy bags as an additional rein-
forcement or affixation aid. He submits that the tapes which are imported by ap-
pellants can easily come off and cannot act as skin barriers. We find that there is
visible and perceptible difference between the items as shown below.
(i) Items imported by the appellants are as follows.

Micropore Tape Transpore

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  214