9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Limitation 2. Confiscation of Imported Equipment 3. Compliance with Notification Conditions 4. Validity of Show Cause Notice 5. Duty Liability Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bar of Limitation The appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued after nine years from the date of clearance of goods, invoking the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner, who issued the notice, was not authorized by the Board to do so, making the notice illegal and without jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted this contention, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ranadey Micronutrients v. C.C.E., which states that departmental clarifications and circulars issued by the CBEC are binding on revenue officers. 2. Confiscation of Imported Equipment The primary ground for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was the non-production of an installation certificate. However, the adjudicating authority conceded that such a certificate was not required in this case. The tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specifically allege other conditions' violations as grounds for confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation could not be upheld for want of specific allegations in the show cause notice. 3. Compliance with Notification Conditions The appellant argued that the notification did not specify a particular period within which the free treatment to at least 40% of outdoor patients had to be given. They provided statistics showing compliance over the equipment's life span. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had not met the conditions of the notification, as the free treatment percentage was below the required 40% and there was no inpatient facility. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I., which emphasized continuous compliance with notification conditions. 4. Validity of Show Cause Notice The tribunal found that the show cause notice was not issued by a proper officer as defined under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner was not authorized by the Board to issue such a notice, making it invalid. This lack of authorization rendered the notice illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. Duty Liability Despite the invalidity of the show cause notice, the tribunal held that the duty liability was sustainable due to the appellant's failure to comply with the notification conditions. However, enforcement of this liability was not possible due to the invalid show cause notice. The department was given the liberty to take necessary steps in light of the tribunal's observations. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation of the imported equipment and the penalty. While the duty liability was upheld, it could not be enforced due to the invalid show cause notice. The department was permitted to take further action as necessary.
|
