9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof, Shri S.M. Upadhayay, is the Chief Accountant. The institute imported medical equipment valued at Rs. 3,00,99,704/- in 1993 without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. One of the prime condition of this Notification was that the hospital would treat free of charge on an average at least 40% of all their outdoor patients. Two show cause notices were issued, one dated 28-11-1997 and the other dated 23-12-1997 alleging that the institution had failed to fulfil this condition and therefore the medical equipments were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The demand for duty totally amounting to Rs. 2,53,87,314/- was made under the powers of Section 28(1) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were charging fees from all patients and there was no system for giving free treatment. Smt. Chokulkar further stated that they were not maintaining OPD Register. Shri S.C. Shah in his statement claimed that he was unable to furnish OPD Register. Shri Upadhayay in his statement claimed that the registers and other documents were destroyed from time to time. In the impugned order the Commissioner has mainly gone on the basis of these statements. Before the Commissioner claim was made, which claim was reiterated before us, that apart from providing OPD treatment to patients in their hospital, the hospital were also providing free treatment to patients at locations other than hospital. For this purpose various camps were held. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage was wrongly made. 7. We have also heard Shri Deepak Kumar who supports the Commissioner s order. 8. The impugned order does not confirm any demand under Section 28(1) in spite of the clearcut charge in both show cause notices. In terms of the order the duty is to be charged at the time of redemption of the goods. Therefore, the applications are also silent about the question of duty. As regards the mandatory penalty, we find that the allegation is made only in one of the two show cause notice and that too under to Section 114A (and not under Section 112) Shri K.L. Rekhi submits that this proviso having come into effect only in September 1996 cannot be invoked. Shri Deepak Kumar states that the obligation to treat certain n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
