2015 (10) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Import of medical equipment between - Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus Extension of exemption notification Appellant availed exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., however failed to fulfil condition of notification After investigation, Commissioner confiscated goods under Section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem same on payment of fine, penalty and customs duty Held that - on careful perusal of records and statement given by CEO of appellant s Hospital, appellant could not produce any record in support of their claim as regard free treatment given to IPD and OPD patients It is categorically mentioned in notices that in none of years, proper registers are maintained in support of statistics filed Settled position in law that it is for person who claiming benefit of exemption notification to lead evidence to show that he is entitled for same As regard claim of appellant for Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to be extended, court of view that this particular issue has not been dealt with by lower adjudicating authority Therefore appellants not entitled for exemption under notification, however, penalty is waived Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to consider admissibility of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to appellant in accordance with law Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
3. Consideration of alternate Notification No. 65/88-Cus.

Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.:
The appellant, a hospital, imported medical equipment availing exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. An inquiry revealed non-compliance with conditions requiring free treatment to patients. Despite claims of compliance, the appellant failed to produce records supporting free treatment to outdoor and indoor patients. The appellant's inability to substantiate their claim led to the denial of benefits under the notification.

Entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.:
The appellant argued fulfilling conditions of providing free treatment to patients, but the lack of supporting records and statements cast doubt on their claims. The Tribunal observed that the appellant could not produce evidence to prove compliance with the notification's conditions. As per legal principles, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking exemption, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was not entitled to benefits under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.

Consideration of alternate Notification No. 65/88-Cus.:
The Tribunal noted that the lower adjudicating authority did not address the issue of the appellant's eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Therefore, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to evaluate the applicability of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to the appellant and issue a fresh order within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 64/88-Cus., leading to the denial of benefits under the notification. The penalty was waived, and the matter regarding the applicability of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. was remanded for further consideration by the adjudicating authority.