9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by filing Bill of Entry No. 3394, dated 3-11-1989 and IGM No. 2789/259, dated 2-11-1989. They also imported spares for medical equipment valued at Rs. 3,54,188, vide B/E No. 1057, dated 3-4-1991 and spares for MRI vide B/E No. 2699, dated 9-6-1991. The appellant claimed benefit of Notification No. 64/88 on the ground that they furnished certificate from DGHS in terms of this notification. The department alleged by its show cause notice dated 11-11-1994 that intelligence was received by the Collectorate that the importers had cleared medical eqipments fraudulently. It is also specifically mentioned that M/s. Paramount Medicos P. Ltd. was a Diagnostic Centre without any indoor bed facility. The show cause notice alleges several other things. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention on the part of the appellant to defraud the Government. He, therefore, submitted that the claim made by the department is squarely hit by limitation. 3. As against this the ld. DR adopted the reasonings in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. In the impugned order at para 13, the Collector has held as follows : Dr. Shah had emphasised that they have acted bona fides, obtained all the necessary certificates from the concerned authorities and produced all the documents to the Customs authorities for their satisfaction before grant of exemption. They have been unfailingly providing free treatment to at least 40% of the patients for past 5 years or so and continue to do so. Now since last year Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice may only indicate the views of the intelligence unit. Assuming for one moment, the term fraudulently is used for the benefit of the department, even then, can we held against the appellant? In our view, we cannot hold against the appellant. In para 13 of the order, the Collector specifically held that the appellant did not try to defraud the Customs department. When we look into the finding given by the Collector, we are of the view that facts found by the Collector cannot be questioned as there is no appeal filed by the department against such a finding. Hence, plea of invoking of larger period cannot be upheld. We are, therefore, of the view that the department has not made out any case. Hence, the appeal is allowed with cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
