2017 (11) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 64/88 Cus. dated 01.03.1988 - import of CT Scanner (duty free import) - non-fulfillment of condition of Notification - burden to prove - Held that - instead of contesting the factual finding recorded by the original authority regarding treatment of outpatients as well as inpatient in terms of the said notification, the appellant simply questioned the findings without any supporting evidences. It is necessary for the appellant to avail additional concession to establish that such condition has been duly fulfilled. It is not for the Revenue to establish that the appellant did not fulfill such conditions. In the absence of any record to substantiate the fulfillment of the condition, the original authority is correct in arriving at the conclusion therein - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Duty-free import of CT Scanner under Notification 64/88 Cus.
2. Failure to fulfill conditions of the notification.
3. Appeal against duty demand and penalty imposition.
4. Verification of records to support fulfillment of conditions.
5. Appellant's challenge to factual findings.
6. Legal precedent regarding exemption from customs duty.
7. Compliance with pre-conditions for exemption.
8. Dismissal of the appeal based on legal precedents.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the duty-free import of a CT Scanner by a hospital under Notification 64/88 Cus. dated 01.03.1988. The appellant failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification, leading to the initiation of proceedings by the Revenue to demand and recover the duty foregone on the import.

2. The original authority found that the appellants did not meet the conditions of the notification, specifically regarding providing free treatment to outpatients and patients from poor backgrounds. The appellant's failure to submit supporting documentary evidence resulted in the disallowance of the duty concession and the imposition of a penalty.

3. The appellant sought further time to present their case, citing the unavailability of senior counsel. However, the Tribunal noted the age of the case and proceeded to decide based on the appeal papers and submissions made by the learned AR, as the matter had been pending for an extended period.

4. The appellants contested the factual findings of the original authority, claiming that proper verification of hospital records was not conducted. However, the Tribunal emphasized the appellant's responsibility to provide evidence supporting their claim of fulfilling the notification conditions, which they failed to do, leading to the affirmation of the original authority's decision.

5. Legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Mediwell Hospital and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, emphasized that importers cannot claim absolute exemption from customs duty as a right. Compliance with pre-conditions for exemption is crucial, and non-compliance can result in demand proceedings, as strictly enforced by all concerned.

6. Citing the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court rulings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, highlighting that recovery proceedings for ineligible exemption are not constrained by limitations. The decision was based on established legal principles and the failure of the appellant to substantiate their claim of fulfilling the notification conditions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal precedents presented in the case.

← Previous Next →