The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., holding that blood glucose monitoring systems (glucometers) are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027 as instruments for chemical analysis and not under CTH 9018 as medical diagnostic instruments.
The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shri M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that the device performs chemical analysis of blood glucose levels and therefore squarely falls within the ambit of Heading 9027. Merely because the instrument is used in the medical field does not automatically place it under Heading 9018 when a tariff heading specifically describing its analytical function exists.
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, which had set aside the assessment order classifying the imported glucometers under CTH 90189099 and demanding differential customs duty. The Revenue challenged the appellate order before the Tribunal.
The appellant/importer an SEZ importer, imported “One Touch Select Simple Blood Glucose Monitoring System” and “One Touch Select Plus Simple Blood Glucose Monitoring System.” The company classified the products under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 90278090, covering instruments and apparatus for chemical analysis, attracting nil basic customs duty under the applicable tariff provisions.
The Customs Department, however, contended that the products were more appropriately classifiable under CTI 90189099, covering diagnostic and medical instruments, which attracted customs duty at the applicable rate. Following provisional assessment and subsequent finalization, customs authorities classified the goods under CTH 90189099 and demanded differential duty along with interest.
Aggrieved by the reassessment, the importer approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in its favour. The Revenue then carried the matter to the Tribunal.
The Department argued that Heading 9018 represented the more specific classification because glucometers are diagnostic instruments used in medical sciences. It further alleged that the Commissioner (Appeals) had incorrectly applied the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff, misread the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes, and failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind Notification No. 50/2017-Customs.
According to Revenue, the primary function of a glucometer is medical diagnosis, making Heading 9018 the appropriate tariff classification.
The importer defended the appellate order by relying on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which had approved the Tribunal’s earlier ruling in Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Both decisions held that glucometers merit classification under Heading 9027.
The importer also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department against the Bombay High Court’s decision had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in October 2023. Further, the Tribunal had reaffirmed the same view in Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the Department’s appeal in February 2026.
The Tribunal observed that Heading 9018 covers instruments used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences, whereas Heading 9027 specifically covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. It noted that a glucometer functions by analyzing a blood sample through a chemical or enzymatic reaction occurring on a test strip and thereafter quantifies glucose concentration.
The Bench further rejected the Department’s contention that glucometers merely assist medical professionals. It held that measuring blood glucose levels itself constitutes a diagnostic step, as abnormal readings enable medical intervention and treatment. Thus, the analytical and diagnostic functions are intrinsically linked.
The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was no longer res integra. Earlier decisions in Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd., and the subsequent decision in Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. had consistently held that glucometers are classifiable under Heading 9027. Significantly, attempts by the Department to challenge these rulings before the Supreme Court had failed.
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of departmental appeals further reinforced the settled legal position regarding tariff classification of glucometers.
Holding that glucometers perform chemical analysis of blood samples and are therefore properly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9027, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Calcined Kaolin Clay Can’t Be Classified as Chemically Defined Silicate: CESTAT
