Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2003 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (8) TMI 98 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Import of C.T. Scanner under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
- Withdrawal of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate by DGHS.
- Show cause notice for violation of post-importation conditions.
- Imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation.
- Appeal against redemption fine.

Analysis:
The appellant imported a C.T. Scanner in 1990-91 under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., released provisionally without duty on a bond later cancelled upon withdrawal of the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate by DGHS. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalty for violating post-importation conditions. The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 23,61,039/- without any penalty, leading to the current appeal against the redemption fine.

The issue revolved around whether the appellant's institution qualified as a hospital under the notification. The Commissioner found the institution to be a diagnostic center, not equipped for inpatients or outpatients, with a significant decrease in free medical check-ups over the years. The institution's status as a diagnostic center was crucial, as per the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, which held that a diagnostic center did not qualify as a hospital under the notification. The withdrawal of the Duty Exemption Certificate further rendered the appellant ineligible for customs duty exemption.

The Tribunal considered the facts and legal precedents cited, affirming the lower authority's decision to confiscate the imported equipment due to notification conditions violation. The redemption fine amount was deemed reasonable, unchallenged at the bar. The plea of limitation was dismissed as irrelevant since no duty demand was made in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the confiscation and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates