CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 51525 of 2022 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD-TKD/IMP/1546/2021- 22dated13.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi]

M/s. Aspen Diagnostics Pvt Ltd …Appellant B-82, GT Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi – 110 033 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs –

New Delhi (ICD TKD) …Respondent Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi - 110020 APPEARANCE:

Shri B L Narasimhan, Shri Anurag Kapur and Shri Kausal Jaisalmeria, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 09.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 19.01.2026 FINAL ORDER No. 50074/2026 C J MATHEW In this dispute, carried by M/s Aspen Diagnostics Pvt Ltd from order, [order-in-appeal no. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD-TKD/IMP/1546/2021-22 dated 13th January 2022] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their claim for entitlement to notification extending benefit of ‘nil’ rate of duties of customs and affirming denial, in the first instance, by the ‘proper officer’ under section 17 of Customs Act, 1962, we are required to consider the contention of the appellant that ‘artificial respiration or other therapeutic respiration apparatus (ventilators)’ is

not limited to conventionally known ‘ventilators’ but encompasses all, and every, apparatus performing the described function. This is antipodal to the position adopted by the lower authorities, and, in particular, the enunciation by first appellate authority, and now canvassed by Learned Authorized Representative, to the effect that, from the deployment in description corresponding to claimed item2 in the notification and as demonstrated by the evolving trend of exemptions for like goods since then, the benefit is limited to the parenthetical exposition therein. On this distinguishment was erected the differential duty of ₹ 36,66,035 held leviable on ‘oxygen concentrator’, imported vide bill of entry no. 7630674/11.05.2020, at the rate applicable to tariff item 9019 2010 of First Schedule to

Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

2. Learned Counsel for appellant informed that the classification declared by them is not in dispute and the indicated intent of assessing authority to deny benefit of exemption had been countered with ‘protest’ and insistence on ‘speaking order’ which, he intimated, could not be pressed before payment of duty and clearance owing to the troubled times of the pandemic not affording the luxury of patient continuance. He contended that, in the absence of any material justifying ineligibility to the exemption, other than queries that were responded to in ICES, the appellant had, perforce, no option but to challenge the ‘unreasoned and unreasonable’ assessment before the first appellate authority.

2 [notification 20/2020-Cus dated 9th April 2020 (serial no. 1)]

was discoursed upon at length with reference to a particular lexicon, 3. In the impugned order, the expression ‘artificial respiration’ of popular usage among some of the English-speaking populace of the world and of unknown vintage, and emphasis placed on the particularity, bracketed as it was, as intended object of exemption. It was also observed that the impugned goods are used for concentrating oxygen for inhalation without having to ‘assist respiration’ through external source which, according him, was the essence of ‘ventilator’ from the expressions deployed in the elaboration preceding and concluded that ‘5.4…… It needs to be noted that during the second wave in March-April 2021, the government again issued notification no. 28/2021-Cus dated 24.04.2021. This notification specifically mentioned Ventilators and Oxygen Concentrators separately. My view that notification 20/2020-Cus dated 09.04.2020 covered ‘Ventilators’ only find support from the press release dated 09.