9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents 2 and 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 1,74,177 paid by the petitioner as duty on the `Scrap Vein Sets imported under Bill of Entry No. 5367, dated 14-8-1985. 2. Since in both the Writ petitions, the subject matter and the parties involved therein are one and the same, both writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned. 3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow both the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents though no counter affidavit ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us Canulae and tubing for long term use . It was further held that the importation of the consignment was without a valid licence, but allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- without imposing any personal penalty on the petitioners. In view of the above order of the first respondent, the goods that were imported by the petitioners were assessed to duty amounting to Rs. 1,74,177/- and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed as redemption fine. Accordingly the petitioners herein deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards redemption fine and also paid customs duty of Rs. 1,74,177/- demanded vide AIR C.No. 790, dated 0-9-1985 and cleared the goods for home consumption. That being so, it is the case of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vein Sets for single use were not covered by OGL and also that the said importation of the consignment was without a valid licence. On these grounds they levied a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- and also a duty of Rs. 1,74,177/-. Thereafter by paying the said amounts the petitioners cleared the said goods. Regarding all these facts there is no dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the fact that whether the scalp vein sets are Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use or not and also as such the same is exempted from duty or not. In this regard in the impugned order it is the case of the respondents that though the goods invoiced in the consignment are Top Brand intravenous canulae on examination of the consignment it was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misconception of the matter, that long term use means that a needle must be capable of being kept in the vein for along term and not that it should be repeatedly used. In the facts and circumstances of this case, such a contention of the petitioners herein has every force in it. 8. Further it is also stated by the petitioner that the Tribunal CEGAT itself in the judgment reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 58 has clearly held that Scalp Vein Sets are Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for Long Term Use and will fall under S. No. 21 of List 2 of Appendix 6 of AM 85-88. Therefore it is contended by the petitioners herein that the order of the 2nd respondent Collector is without jurisdiction and not based on a proper appreciation of the facts of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
