9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 969 - AT - CustomsEligibility for exemption - Notification No. 64/88-Cus DATED 1/3/1988 treatment of poor patients hospitalization of low income group limitation of time Held that - exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus dated 1/3/1988 can be considered even if the same was not claimed by the appellant. The goods imported by the appellant is prima facie covered under general exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus, however eligibility of notification was not considered by the Original Adjudicating authority - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating authority to consider the eligibility of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus - it is of no significance that appellant had not claimed the said notification at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry. Waiver of penalty Held that - in an identical case of Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital & Regional Cancer Centre 2015 (10) TMI 185 - CESTAT MUMBAI penalty was waived. matter remanded opportunity of hearing to be provided before adjudication appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus 2. Consideration of eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus 3. Waiver of penalty Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus: The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appellant had initially given up the exemption due to non-fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which remanded it to the Tribunal for deciding the eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The Tribunal observed that the goods imported were prima facie covered under general exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The Original Adjudicating authority had not considered the eligibility of this notification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority for reevaluation, irrespective of the appellant's initial claim status. Consideration of Eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus: The Tribunal noted that the Original Adjudicating authority had not assessed the eligibility of the appellant under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Despite the appellant not claiming this notification initially, the Tribunal deemed it necessary for the Adjudicating authority to consider the eligibility of this notification. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh assessment to determine the applicability of the exemption, providing the appellant with a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before any new adjudication order is issued. Waiver of Penalty: Regarding the penalty issue, the appellant requested a waiver citing a precedent where a penalty was dropped in a similar case. The Tribunal acknowledged this request and directed the Adjudicating authority to reconsider the penalty issue in light of the previous decision where the penalty was waived. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should be granted a sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing before any decision on the penalty is made. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to the Original Adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment on both the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus and the penalty issue. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a thorough understanding of the case.
|
