AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal is filed against order in appeal dated 3.6.2010 which upheld order in original dated 23.11.2009 in terms of which the benefit of Sr. No.9 of
Notification No.17/2001-Cus. was denied to the items imported by the appellant viz. single mirror gonio lens and 4 mirror mini gonio lens on the ground
that these are not covered under Sr. No.9 of list 30 appended to Notification No.17/2001-Cus.
The appellant in its appeal has contended that the impugned goods are eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No.17/2001-Cus. and inter
alia submitted a letter from Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi in support of its claim.
When the case is called today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant nor is there any request for adjournment. Accordingly, we
proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
The Id. DR states that the exemption is very specific and exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly.
We have considered the contentions of DR and the pleas taken by the appellant in its appeal. We find that Sr. No.9 of list 30 appended to
Notification No.17/2001-Cus exempts gonioscope, 3 mirror lens, special lenses for laser delivery, special diagnostic lenses (14D, 20D, 90D), Endo
lens. Thus only '3 mirror lens' is mentioned in the said notification while the impugned goods on which exemption has been denied are single mirror
gonio lens and 4 mirror mini gonio lens. Obviously having regard to the fact that only 3 mirror lens was eligible for exemption, the impugned goods are
clearly not covered within the scope of Sr. No 9 of list 30 of the said exemption notification. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CCE Pondicherry Vs. Honda Siel Power Products - 2015 (323) ELT 644 (SC t)hat ""it is trite that exemption notifications are to be construed
strictly and even if there is any doubt, same is to be given in favour of the department"". The letter issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for
Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi enclosed with the appeal merely states that single mirror lens, 3 mirror universal 18 mm OD and 4 mirror mini gonio
LR are all gonioscopes for viewing the angle of the eye in case of glaucoma. The said letter in effect acknowledges that these three type of lenses are
separately identified. Thus the said letterdoes not come to the rescue of the appellant.
In the light of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.