Case Law Details
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.
The Tribunal further noted that the impugned order attempted to distinguish the facts from the earlier proceedings. However, after examining Order-in-Appeal No.336/2013 dated 07.03.2013, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered those facts and had given a clear finding justifying classification under CTH 9018. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the reasoning adopted in the impugned order.
The Tribunal also recorded that similar views had been expressed by the Delhi and Kolkata Benches in the appellant’s own cases. It accepted the appellant’s contention that the issue relating to classification of the imported goods was no longer res integra.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts of this Appeal as narrated in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 522/2025 dated 09.06.2025 is reproduced verbatim for convenience :
‘The Appellant had filed two Home Consumption Bills of Entry No.512152 dated 17.05.2010 and No.544895 dated 21.06.2010 for the import of goods described as “Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin, Fnb4984t Dialysis Fluids C.A.P.D”. The appellant sought classification of the said goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018, which pertains to instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. However, the authorities reclassified the goods under CTH 3004, which covers medicaments consisting of mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses. As a result of this reclassification, the appellant was denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No.21/2002, Sl.No.357A, and Notification No.06/2006-Central Excise dated 02.03.2006, Sl. No.59’.
2. The above resulted in issuance of a Demand Notice (dt. 27.10.2010) under Section 28 (1) of Customs Act, 1962, the same was adjudicated which resulted in the Order-in-Original No.21538/2013 dated 05.08.2013. Aggrieved by the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original, it appears that the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai and it also appears that the Appellant pleaded mainly that the issue insofar as the classification of imported goods was concerned, was covered since the same was decided in their favour by Chennai Bench which later on, on Appeal by the Revenue, stood upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 522/2025 dated 09.06.2025 thereby dismissed their Appeal. The above dismissal has given rise to the present Appeal before this forum.
3. Heard Shri Akshay Kumar, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue, we have carefully perused the documents placed on record and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Appellant’s own case, apart from the order of co-ordinate Delhi & Kolkata Benches in the Appellant’s own case. After hearing both sides, the only issue that arises for our consideration is, ‘whether the classification of ‘Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 9018 ?’.
4. We have perused the Final Order of this Bench in the Appellant’s own case [Final Order No.40615/2015 dt. 05.06.2015 reported in 2015-TIOL-1754-CESTAT-MAD], wherein this Bench had considered an identical issue and the very same goods in question and this Bench after following the decision of the Apex Court in the Appellant’s own case has held that the classification of CAPD, stands settled and, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Apex Court’s decision dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal.
5. In the impugned order, the officer has tried to differentiate the facts from that involved in the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was appealed before the Bench, but however, after going through the Commissioner (Appeals) order [Order-in-Appeal No.336/2013 dated 07.03.2013], we find the Commissioner (Appeals) has in fact considered those facts and given a clear and categorical finding at paragraphs 2 & 4 of the said order, justifying the classification of the goods in question under CTH 9018 and hence, we do not subscribe to the views expressed in the impugned order.
6. We also find that similar views have been expressed by Delhi & Kolkata Benches and hence, we accept the contention of the Appellant that the issue insofar as the classification of the goods in question is concerned, is no more res integra and hence, we set aside the impugned order.
7. In view of the above, the Appeal stands allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. M.A. also disposed of.
(Order pronounced in open court on 24.04.2026)
