9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order demanding duty on imported CT Scanner under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. - Failure to produce Installation Certificate from DGHS. - Appellants' request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. - Consideration of Tribunal's decision in Gautam Diagnostic Centre v. CC, Mumbai. - Applicability of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. conditions. - Request for remand to lower appellate authority. - Grievance regarding issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN). Issue 1: Appeal against duty demand on imported CT Scanner under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appeal was filed against the duty demand of Rs. 36,13,680 on a CT Scanner imported by the appellants under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The demand was made as the appellants failed to produce the Installation Certificate from the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), a primary condition for availing the duty exemption. Issue 2: Failure to produce Installation Certificate from DGHS. The appellants did not fulfill the requirement of producing the Installation Certificate from the DGHS, leading to the duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the lower authority as the appellants could not provide evidence of fulfilling this condition, disentitling them from the duty exemption. Issue 3: Appellants' request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act. After granting the waiver, the appeal was taken up for final disposal by the Tribunal. Issue 4: Consideration of Tribunal's decision in Gautam Diagnostic Centre v. CC, Mumbai. The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in Gautam Diagnostic Centre case, arguing that the benefit of the notification should not be denied solely for not producing the installation certificate if the hospital was operational before the import. However, the Tribunal found that this case did not establish the appellants' eligibility under the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Issue 5: Applicability of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. conditions. The SDR emphasized that fulfilling all conditions of the notification was crucial, including the production of the installation certificate. The failure to produce this certificate implied non-installation of the equipment, rendering the appellants ineligible for the duty exemption. Issue 6: Request for remand to lower appellate authority. The Counsel requested a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to demonstrate fulfillment of notification conditions. However, as the appellants failed to produce the installation certificate as promised, any remand was deemed futile by the Tribunal. Issue 7: Grievance regarding issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN). A grievance was raised about the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal clarified that the order of the original authority indicated the issuance of the notice, and the lack of response to it was noted, dismissing the grievance raised at this stage. Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) order, upholding the duty demand on the imported CT Scanner due to the appellants' failure to fulfill the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., particularly the non-production of the installation certificate from the DGHS. The appeal was dismissed, and the duty demand was confirmed based on the non-compliance with the notification requirements.
|
