9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No.64/88-Cus regarding duty exemption for medical equipment, compliance with conditions of the notification, obligation to maintain records, and correctness of Commissioner's decision post remand.
Comprehensive Details: 1. Compliance with Notification No.64/88-Cus: The case involves a dispute regarding compliance with Notification No.64/88-Cus by a hospital in relation to imported medical equipment. The appellant contends that the hospital failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification from 1990-91 to 1997-98, thus not entitled to duty exemption. The appellant relies on legal precedents like the Supreme Court's judgment in Mediwell Hospital and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI and Commissioner vs. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre to support their argument. The Revenue also emphasizes the importance of maintaining records to demonstrate compliance with the notification. 2. Contentions of the Parties: The Revenue, through the Joint Commissioner, challenges the Commissioner's decision to drop the duty demand, arguing that the hospital did not adequately prove compliance with the notification's conditions. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel asserts that the hospital, being a charitable institution, substantially complied with the notification's requirements. The counsel highlights various charitable programs conducted by the hospital benefiting both outdoor and indoor patients, presenting data from the Commissioner's order to support their stance. 3. Judicial Analysis: Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal notes that this is the second round of litigation and declines further remand. The key issue revolves around whether the Commissioner correctly considered the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Lady Amphthil Nurses Institutions' case, as directed in the remand order. The Tribunal observes that the Commissioner's order lacks explicit consideration of this decision, which emphasized the continuing obligation of hospitals to maintain records for duty-free clearances under the notification. 4. Decision and Conclusion: The Tribunal finds the Commissioner's order inadequate as it did not thoroughly scrutinize the hospital's compliance with the notification's conditions, especially regarding record-keeping obligations. Due to insufficient evidence provided by the respondent, the Tribunal allows the appeal, holding the hospital liable to pay the duty foregone on the medical equipment. A redemption fine of 10% of the goods' value, amounting to &8377; 52,000, is imposed on the respondent, with a directive to pay the duty and fine within 30 days from the date of the order. *Note: The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member.*
|
