9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether demand of Customs duty can be made after more than 5 years of importing medical equipment availing the benefit of a specific Notification. 2. Compliance with conditions stipulated in the Notification. 3. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act. 4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Issue 1: The Appeal filed by Revenue questions the demand of Customs duty from a hospital after more than 5 years of importing medical equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The hospital failed to comply with the conditions specified in the Notification, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent confiscation of goods. Issue 2: The hospital argued that the conditions were impossible to fulfill, claiming they cater to a specific class of patients and did not have detailed data on free treatment provided to outdoor patients. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of compliance with the conditions and emphasized that importers must fulfill Notification requirements post-import to avoid confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Issue 3: Regarding the applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal rejected the hospital's argument that the duty was demandable under the Notification itself, not Section 28. The Tribunal held that the duty was payable as the conditions were unmet, and penalty under Section 112A was justified for non-compliance. Issue 4: The Tribunal upheld the Appeal filed by Revenue, citing the Supreme Court's ruling that action can be taken even after the rescindment of a Notification. The Tribunal emphasized that importers cannot claim conditions are impossible post-import and that failure to comply renders goods liable for confiscation and duty payment. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the Appeal filed by Revenue, affirming the demand for Customs duty and imposition of penalty on the hospital.
|
