2005 (6) TMI 311 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on the interpretation of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Compliance with the condition of treating more than 40% free patients in medical treatment.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,32,37,001/- and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively, by an applicant who imported medical equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The dispute arose as the applicant failed to meet the condition of treating more than 40% free patients, as required by the notification. The Revenue contended that the applicant did not fulfill the condition, citing a Supreme Court judgment that rejected the argument that the deficiency in the percentage of free treatment to patients in one year could be compensated in subsequent years. The Revenue argued that since the applicant admitted that in the year 1995-96, the percentage of free patient treatment was less than 40%, the benefit of the Notification was rightly denied.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's contention that, apart from the year 1995-96, the percentage of free patient treatment was above 40% in other years, such as 1994, 1997, and 1998-99. The Tribunal noted a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the importance of maintaining the percentage of free patient treatment at or above 40% consistently throughout the period. In this case, the Tribunal found that the applicant generally treated more than 40% free patients in the year 1998-99, with only two years showing a percentage below 40%. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a strong case in their favor. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty for the appeal hearing, thereby allowing the stay petition.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation and application of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. concerning the treatment of free patients in medical services. The Tribunal considered the applicant's compliance with the 40% threshold and the Revenue's argument based on a Supreme Court precedent. Ultimately, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's case due to the consistent treatment of more than 40% free patients in various years, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit for the duty and penalty.