Baxter (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal before the CESTAT Chennai concerned the classification of imported goods described as “Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin, Fnb4984t Dialysis Fluids C.A.P.D.” imported through two Bills of Entry dated 17.05.2010 and 21.06.2010. The appellant had classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018, which relates to instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. However, the customs authorities reclassified the goods under CTH 3004, applicable to medicaments for therapeutic or prophylactic use. Due to this reclassification, the appellant was denied exemption benefits under Notification No.21/2002 and Notification No.06/2006-Central Excise.
A demand notice dated 27.10.2010 was issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which culminated in Order-in-Original No.21538/2013 dated 05.08.2013 confirming the demand. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai, contending that the classification issue had already been decided in its favour by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal and that the decision had subsequently been upheld by the Supreme Court in the appellant’s own case.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, dismissed the appeal through Order-in-Appeal No.522/2025 dated 09.06.2025, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal examined the earlier Final Order No.40615/2015 dated 05.06.2015 passed in the appellant’s own case involving identical goods and the same classification dispute. In that order, the Chennai Bench had followed the Supreme Court decision and held that the classification of CAPD products stood settled under CTH 9018. The Tribunal observed that the issue had already attained finality in favour of the appellant.
