Tribunal Order Can’t Be Treated as ‘Additional Evidence’; 18% IGST Upheld on Medical Monitors: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a Tribunal judgment cannot be treated as “additional evidence” for the purpose of remanding a matter. The Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Member–Judicial) and M.M. Parthiban (Member–Technical) allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and ruled that Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) at 18% was correctly paid on imported LCD monitors used with medical equipment. The appellant/assessee, Wipro GE Healthcare had imported “LCD HB Colour Monitors without stand, 19-inch size” between December 2018 and February 2021 through the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. The monitors were intended for use with medical equipment such as ultrasound machines, X-ray systems, CT scanners, and MRI machines. The company classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8528 and paid IGST at 18% under Serial Nos. 383C and 384 of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, treating them as computer monitors. However, during a post-clearance audit, the department contended that the monitors were specifically designed for medical equipment and not for use with Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machines. It argued that they fell under the residual category attracting 28% IGST under Serial No. 154 of Schedule IV of the same notification. Show Cause Notices were issued invoking Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, demanding differential duty along with interest and proposing confiscation and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original orders but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, treating a subsequent Tribunal decision in another case as “additional evidence.” The central question before CESTAT was twofold: Whether the imported monitors were correctly taxable at 18% IGST; and whether a judicial decision of the Tribunal could be treated as “additional evidence” under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 to justify remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the case on the ground that the Tribunal’s earlier decision in a similar matter was not available before the original adjudicating authority and therefore constituted “additional evidence.” The appellant argued that the issue was already conclusively decided by a co-ordinate bench of CESTAT in the case of Philips India Limited, where identical monitors were held eligible for 18% IGST. That ruling was later upheld by the Supreme Court of India, which dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in July 2025. The assessee contended that a binding judicial precedent cannot be treated as documentary evidence under Rule 5 and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was duty-bound to follow the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal carefully examined Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, and relevant statutory definitions under the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It held that “additional evidence” refers to factual or documentary material such as statements or documents. A judicial pronouncement of a Court or Tribunal cannot be categorized as “evidence.” Law declared by higher judicial forums is binding and deemed to be the law from inception unless expressly made prospective. The Bench relied on judgments of the Telangana and Bombay High Courts, which have held that court decisions cannot be treated as documentary evidence for procedural purposes. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding the matter solely on the ground that the earlier CESTAT decision was not available before the adjudicating authority. Judicial discipline required the appellate authority to follow binding precedent unless stayed or overturned. Importantly, there was no stay of the earlier Tribunal ruling, and the Supreme Court had already upheld it. Therefore, the issue was no longer res integra. CESTAT set aside the impugned remand orders and allowed the appeals filed by Wipro GE Healthcare. It held that the imported monitors were correctly subjected to IGST at 18%. No differential IGST was payable. The remand order treating a Tribunal judgment as “additional evidence” was legally unsustainable. Case Details Case Title: M/s Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-III Citation: JURISHOUR-74-CESTAT-2026(Mum) Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87078 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2026 Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Roshil Deepak Nichani Counsel For Respondent: Authorized Representative Jitesh Kumar Jain Click Here To Read Order Read More: Merits Must Prevail Over Technical Delay in GST Late Fee Dispute: Rajasthan HC Allows Appeal Beyond Limitation

Tribunal Order Can’t Be Treated as ‘Additional Evidence’; 18% IGST Upheld on Medical Monitors: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 11, 2026

Income Tax Dept. Introduces Form 121, Replaces Forms 15G and 15H

CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift under Finance Act, 2023

GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 11, 2026

Income Tax Dept. Introduces Form 121, Replaces Forms 15G and 15H

CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift under Finance Act, 2023

About us

Company

Categories