Customs Concessional Duty Relief on Massagers: SC to Hear Dept’s Appeal Over ‘Medical Use Only’ Clause Interpretation [Read Judgement]
The Tribunal found that the authorities had misread the notification. It held that the language of Serial No. 563 does not contain restrictive qualifiers such as “only,” “exclusively,” or “wholly” before “for medical use.”
![Customs Concessional Duty Relief on Massagers: SC to Hear Dept’s Appeal Over ‘Medical Use Only’ Clause Interpretation [Read Judgement]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/11/2104234-customs-concessional-duty-massagers-sc-medical-taxscan.webp "Customs Concessional Duty Relief on Massagers: SC to Hear Dept’s Appeal Over ‘Medical Use Only’ Clause Interpretation [Read Judgement]")
The Supreme Court is yet to hear the Department’s appeal against a Tribunal ruling that granted concessional duty relief to the respondent on imported electric massagers. The dispute centers on the interpretation of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus, Serial No. 563, and whether the benefit applies only to goods used exclusively for medical purposes.
Lifelong Online Retail Pvt. Ltd. had imported electric massagers and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9019 10 20, claiming concessional duty at 5% under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. The Additional Commissioner of Customs denied the benefit, stating the goods were not meant “only” for medical use, and passed a speaking order for one Bill of Entry.
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! Click here
For the remaining 76 Bills of Entry, no speaking orders were issued, yet the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, relying solely on the reasoning in the single order.
The importer challenged this approach before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai.
In the Final Order, the Tribunal found that the authorities had misread the notification. It held that the language of Serial No. 563 does not contain restrictive qualifiers such as “only,” “exclusively,” or “wholly” before “for medical use.”
The Tribunal emphasized that the explanation attached to the entry merely clarifies that “goods” refers to instruments or appliances—not parts or spares—and does not impose exclusivity of use.
The Tribunal relied on several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., which held that exemption notifications must be interpreted as drafted, and restrictive language cannot be read into them unless explicitly stated.
Crack the Fraud Code. Master the Law. Stay Ahead! Click here
Supporting decisions from JMK Energy, Indian Organic Chemicals, and Aravali Ispat reinforced that unless a notification mandates exclusive use, benefit cannot be denied merely due to alternate applications.
The Tribunal concluded that the massagers, being capable of medical use, qualify for the concessional rate and that the denial based on assumed exclusivity was legally unsustainable. It also criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for not issuing speaking orders in the remaining 76 cases and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Department challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court. The case now awaits final adjudication by the Supreme Court, which will determine whether the Tribunal’s interpretation of the notification stands or if the Department’s restrictive reading prevails.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
