evidence on record produced both of the Revenue and the respondent is in favour of the respondents' submission and requires to be accepted. It is seen that the item was being granted benefit for a long time and also that there was a clear opinion given by the authorities of DGHS through their Expert Committee to grant the benefit. It was only an other opinion obtained subsequently which resulted in the proceedings which is in contradiction to the opinion given by the Expert Committee of DGHS, which promoted the department to issue show cause notice to deny the benefit. In the concerned notification, mere is no requirement for any certification of the item for use in a particular manner nor declaring the same to be falling within the description of any of the serial numbers shown therein, by the DGHS. The view taken by the Revenue that the subsequent opinion withdrawing the benefit of the item under question has no meaning at all as the Notification does not lay down any such criteria of certification from DGHS. It is only in respect of 'any other medical equipment including accessories or spare parts or both of such equipment' which are not specified in the table of the Notification which requires certification from the DGHS to the effect that they are 'life saving equipment, accessories or spare parts for the purpose of grant of the benefit', as can be seen from the proviso to the notification. In any case, the item being a 'Cannula' cannot be disputed as the certification given by the experts on both the sides do not dispute the item being an 'intravenous cannula'. The Sl. No. 32 incorporates both disposable as well as non disposable cannula. The respondents clearly admit that the same is not used in aorta, vena cavae and similar veins. But, however, they are stating that it being a cannula, it is for use in blood vessels. The term blood vessel as explained in all the certificates include 'arteries and veins'. The term 'similar vein' in Sl. No. 34 of the notification appear earlier to the term 'blood vessel' refers only to the term aorta and vena cavae. Therefore, 'cannula' used for aorta and vena cavae and similar veins are different in nature to the one used for blood vessels as can be seen from the various certificates produced. Now, we are required to see as to whether the item satisfy the term 'cannula'. On a perusal of the certificates, it is clear that the item does satisfy the term cannula. As there is no claim for, 'its use for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins', therefore we are required only to see whether the same being used for "blood vessels". Both sides have produced large
