Judgment:
1. The respondents had imported "micro pipettes" and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods duty-free under Customs Notification No. 23/98. The accessories of medical equipments specified in List 22 appended to the above Notification were exempt from payment of basic Customs Duty and Additional Customs Duty under Sl. No. 244 of the Table annexed to the Notification. The medical equipments mentioned at Sl.
No. 66 in List 22 ibid included 'Auto Analyser for enzymes, drug levels and bio-chemicals investigations'. The respondents had claimed exemption in terms of Sl. No. 244 ibid. The original authority noted that the pipettes had an independent function and use viz. accurate and precise sampling of liquids and, accordingly, held that they could not be treated as 'accessory' of any medical equipments. On this basis, the imported goods were directed to be assessed on merits under SH 9026.80 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The first appellate authority has found that, even though the pipettes had independent function, they were to be treated as 'accessory' to Auto Analyser as they were supplied along with Auto Analyser as evidenced by the purchase order, invoices etc. On this basis, it was held that the benefit of exemption under the Notification was available to the imported goods. In the present appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the Revenue has challenged the decision of the lower appellate authority on the following grounds :- (a) The imported goods were not described as "accessories for Auto Analyser" in the manufacturer's catalogue. On the contrary, they were described as "General purpose pipettor for the accurate and precise sampling and dispensing of liquid volumes".
(c) The goods did not satisfy the requirements of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 inasmuch as they were supplied independently.
3. We note that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also accepted that the pipettes had independent function but, at the same time, he has categorically found that the pipettes were supplied along with Auto Analyser as evidenced by purchase order, invoices etc. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been rebutted by the appellant.
Hence we have to proceed on the basis that the pipettes were supplied along with Auto Analyser and, therefore, they were to be considered as "accessories" for Auto Analyser. Obviously, the requirements under the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 were satisfied by the subject import. We are also in agreement with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) when he holds to the effect that, where the imported item is usable with a medical equipment covered under the Notification, it is eligible for the benefit of exemption, notwithstanding the fact that the imported item can be used with some other medical equipments also.
4. For the reasons noted above, we have to sustain the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.