#AscensiaDiabetesCareIndiaPvt.Ltd. – 𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 03.01.2026

Bombay High Court Resolves Glucometer Classification Dispute

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.  (Writ Petition No. 5992 of 2021). This case revolved around the classification of glucometers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the subsequent implications for customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The judgment not only clarified the classification of glucometers but also underscored the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents.

Background of the Case

Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is engaged in the import and sale of blood glucose monitoring systems under the brand name “Contour.” These glucometers are primarily used by individuals to monitor their blood sugar levels at home. The petitioner classified the imported glucometers under tariff item 9027 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, which covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. Based on this classification, the petitioner paid customs duty at a NIL rate and IGST at 12%.

However, during an audit of the Bill of Entry, the Customs Department alleged that the glucometers were misclassified under tariff item 9027 and should instead be classified under tariff item 9018, which covers instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. The department issued a consultative letter and a show-cause notice, demanding a differential duty of ₹30,79,295.

The Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner contended that the glucometers were correctly classified under tariff item 9027, as they are instruments for chemical analysis. They cited a precedent set by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2016), where glucometers were classified under tariff item 9027. The petitioner argued that the CESTAT ruling was binding on the adjudicating authority and should have been followed.

Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that the glucometers are primarily used by individuals at home rather than by medical professionals, which aligns with the explanatory notes for tariff item 9027. They emphasized that the essential function of glucometers is to perform chemical analysis of blood glucose levels, making them more appropriately classified under item 9027.

The Respondents’ Argument

The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT and that the writ petition should not be entertained. They cited judgments that emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances, such as a breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, to justify the filing of a writ petition.

The Court’s Observations and Judgment 

The Bombay High Court rejected the respondents’ argument regarding the alternate remedy, stating that the CESTAT had already ruled on the classification of glucometers in the Bayer Pharmaceuticals case. The court emphasized that judicial discipline and the doctrine of stare decisis required the adjudicating authority to follow the binding precedent set by CESTAT. The court noted that relegating the petitioner to file an appeal would be a mere formality, as the issue had already been conclusively decided.

The court also addressed the respondents’ reliance on Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, which specified a standard rate of duty for “Blood Glucose Monitoring System (Glucometer) and test strips” under Chapter 90 or any other chapter. The court clarified that this notification would only apply if the goods were classified under item 9018, not 9027. Since the CESTAT had already determined that glucometers fall under item 9027, the notification was irrelevant to the case.

In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned order dated 31st December 2020 and the consequential notices of demand. The judgment was initially recorded as “dismissed,” but was later corrected to “disposed” in a subsequent order dated 18th November 2022.

Key Takeaways

Importance of Judicial Discipline: The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to binding precedents set by higher judicial authorities. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have followed the CESTAT’s ruling in the Bayer Pharmaceuticals case.
Classification of Goods: The case highlights the complexities involved in classifying goods under the Customs Tariff Act and the importance of correctly interpreting tariff items and explanatory notes.
Exceptional Circumstances for Writ Petitions: The court clarified that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as a breach of fundamental rights or violation of judicial discipline.
Impact on Importers: The judgment provides clarity for importers of glucometers, affirming their classification under tariff item 9027 and the associated customs duty and IGST rates.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case is a landmark ruling that reinforces the principles of judicial discipline and the importance of adhering to established precedents. It also provides much-needed clarity on the classification of glucometers under the Customs Tariff Act, ensuring consistency in the application of tax laws. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel