18% IGST on LCD Monitors Used With Medical Equipment: CESTAT Allows Wipro GE Healthcare Appeal [Read Order]
CESTAT held that LCD monitors imported for use with medical equipment attract 18% IGST, allowing Wipro GE Healthcare’s appeal
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that LCD HB Colour Monitors imported for use with medical equipment are liable to Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) at 18% and not 28%.
Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, had imported “LCD HB Colour Monitors without stand, size 19 inches” for use with medical equipment such as ultrasound machines, X-ray machines, CT scan machines and MRI systems during the period from December 2018 to February 2021. The appellant classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8528 and paid IGST at 18% by claiming the benefit under Serial Nos. 383C and 384 of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
During post-clearance audit, the department objected to the classification and took the view that the imported monitors were not computer monitors but “other monitors” designed for use with medical equipment. The department proposed that IGST was payable at 28% under Serial No. 154 of Schedule IV of the said notification.
Show cause notices were issued demanding differential duty along with interest and proposing confiscation and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the remand orders, the appellant approached the Tribunal.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the monitors were classifiable under sub-heading 8528 52 and satisfied the conditions for levy of IGST at 18%. They submitted that the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in the case of Philips India Ltd., where IGST at 18% was held applicable on similar goods. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the department’s civil appeal against that decision, and the issue had attained finality.
The revenue supported the remand order and submitted that the matter required reconsideration by the original authority.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that the facts of the present case were identical to those in Philips India Ltd. The tribunal observed that the earlier decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the issue was no longer open to dispute.
The tribunal explained that when a binding decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Supreme Court, covers the issue, the matter need not be examined again in detail. The appellant had paid IGST at 18% in line with the settled legal position, no differential tax was payable.
The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favour of Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
