9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with interim stay order. 2. Consideration of prima facie merits and balance of convenience. 3. Requirement of certificate for imported medical equipment. 4. Decision on pre-deposit amount and waiver. 5. Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on merits. Analysis: 1. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the non-compliance with the interim stay order directing the appellants to pre-deposit the entire duty amount of Rs. 31,39,929. The Commissioner did not consider the prima facie merits of the case and solely focused on the non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive. 2. The consultant argued that the appellants had imported medical equipment and cleared it on executing a bond as per Notification No. 64/88. They were making efforts with the Ministry of Family Welfare, and the DGHS had recommended issuing a certificate after re-considering their case. The consultant highlighted the challenges faced by the diagnostic service in making huge profits and requested a total waiver, emphasizing the balance of convenience and the chances of succeeding in the matter. 3. The Department opposed the waiver request, stating that the appellants were required to produce a certificate from the concerned authority as per the Notification. Despite the bond being executed in 1988 and a show cause notice issued in 1996, the certificate was not provided. The Department insisted on the payment of the entire duty due to the absence of the certificate, emphasizing the need to conclude the matter after a prolonged period. 4. After careful consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the Department that the bond could not be pending indefinitely. Despite the prolonged correspondence and lack of proof regarding the State Govt.'s recommendation for the certificate, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's status as a Diagnostic Service Centre and the need to consider the prima facie nature of the case and the balance of convenience. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within three months, with the balance of duty waived and recovery stayed. 5. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide the matter on merits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the case for a hearing on merits after the appellants complied with the pre-deposit requirement and provided proof of compliance within three months. The appeal was allowed by way of remand with the specified directions for further proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals).
|
