Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1861
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member, K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member
ASPEN DIAGNOSTICS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACC IMPORT)-NEW DELHI – Respondent
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52218 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.L. Narasimhan, Anuraag Kapur, Kaushal Jaisalmeria
For the Respondents: N.M. Goyal
Blood Glucose Meters are classified under CTI 9027 as instruments for chemical analysis rather than CTI 9018, as their primary function is chemical analysis and they are used by non-professionals, making CTI 9027 the more specific heading.
Headnote:The case involves the classification of imported Blood Glucose Meters, Urine Analyzers, and Chemistry Analyzers. The importer classified the goods under CTI 9027 80 90, claiming a Nil rate of Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The Revenue contested this, asserting that the goods should be classified under CTI 9018 90 99, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalties. The primary issue is whether Blood Glucose Meters are medical diagnostic instruments under CTI 9018 or instruments for chemical analysis under CTI 9027. The court reasoned that the essential function of a glucometer is to perform chemical analysis of blood sugar. Relying on HSN Explanatory Notes and Rule 3 of the General Rules for Interpretation, the court found that CTI 9027 is more specific than CTI 9018, especially since these devices are used by individuals at home rather than exclusively in professional medical practice. In result, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. import of glucometers and the resulting classification dispute between cti 9027 and cti 9018. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding whether glucometers are medical diagnostic or chemical analysis instruments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. application of hsn explanatory notes and precedents to classify glucometers under cti 9027. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final determination that the goods are correctly classified under cti 90278090. (Para 10 , 11) |
ASHOK JINDAL:
The appellant is against the appeal in the impugned order, wherein the goods imported by the appellant were classified by the Revenue under CTI 9027 80 90 with consequential demand of duty raised and penalty was also imposed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in import of trade of disposable items, Laboratory, patient care, ICU & surgical equipment, serology kits, biochemistry since 1995. During the period 04.09.2020 to 27.12.2021, the appellant have imported goods such as Blood Glucose Meter/ Glucometer, Urine Analyzer, Blood gas and Chemistry Analyzer through 66 Bills of Entry. The appellant classified the subject goods under Customs Tariff Item 9027 80 90 and discharged Basic Customs Duty at Nil rate in terms Sl. No.35 of Notification No.24/2005-cus. dated 01.03.2005. The appellant also discharged the Integrated Goods and Service Tax in terms of Notification No.01/2017 dated 28.06.2017 as under:
| S.No. | Subject goods | Rate of IGST |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Glucometers | 12% in terms of SI. No.212 of Schedule-II to the IGST Notification |
| 2. | Other subject goods | 18% in terms of SI. No.417 of Schedule-III to the IGST Notification |
3. The Revenue is of the view that the classification of the subject goods is classified by the appellant is not correct and the same is to be classified under CTI 90189099. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2022 was issued to the appellant to demand differential duty alongwith penalty by classifying the subject goods under CTI 90189099. The appellant contested and submitted that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai but the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bayers Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the product under consideration was Blood Glucose Meter and that was classified under CTI 90278090 and exemption was granted in terms of Notification No.24/2005. The decision of Bayers Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was followed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.86944/2023 vide Final Order No.A-85310/2025 dated 21.02.2025 in the case of Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd. by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal. The said order has been affirmed by the hon’ble Apex Court in Customs (Civil) Appeal No.2429-2430 of 2026 vide order dated 23.02.2026. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative submitted that the Blood Glucose Meter is a medical diagnostic instrument and not a laboratory analytic instrument. Therefore, same is to be classified under CTI 90189099.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Considering the facts that the issue is being examined by this Tribunal in the case of Bayers Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), whereas this Tribunal observed as under:
“5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both sides. The competing Headings for classification of the impugned goods are extracted below:
9027 instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis (for example, polarity meters, refractory meters. spectrometers, gas or smoke analysis apparatus: instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking viscosity. porosity, expansion.....
9018 instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical dental or veterinary sciences....
The learne
