9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The principal grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority failed to carry out the Tribunal's direction and exceeded the scope of the direction. The issues revolve around the treatment of patients in outdoor medical camps for computing percentages as per Customs Notification No. 64/88-C.E. and whether the outdoor facility was limited to members of a specific community.
Issue 1 - Treatment of patients in outdoor medical camp: The Tribunal affirmed that treatment in the outdoor medical camp should be considered for computing the figure of outdoor patients as per Customs Notification No. 64/88-C.E. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a rational decision on compliance with the Notification. However, the adjudicating authority failed to adhere to the Tribunal's direction, resulting in the appellant seeking redressal before the forum to reverse the decision of confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and duty. Issue 2 - Outdoor facility for specific community: The Tribunal agreed that there was no evidence to show that the appellant's outdoor facility was limited to members of their community. Despite this, the adjudicating authority held that the medical facilities were only available to members of the appellant's community, leading to non-fulfillment of the Notification requirements. The appellant argued that the medical equipment imported complied with the Notification and provided evidence of non-discriminatory services rendered to various communities. Judgment: The Appellate Tribunal emphasized the importance of following appellate orders and not bypassing them. They found that the service provided by the appellants was without discrimination based on the evidence presented, including the patients' register. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to decide the first issue based on the appellate direction and remanded the matter for further consideration. The appeal was allowed, and the cross objection filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
