9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in this appeal. One is an application by the Revenue for early hearing of the appeal and the other is by the appellants themselves seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount of duty demanded from them under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act by the authorities below. When the applications arose first in the roll-call of cases, we suggested to hear the appeal itself after granting waiver of pre-deposit and the suggestion was acceptable to both the sides. Later on, the matter has arisen before us in the regular hearing list. The early hearing application filed by the Revenue stands allowed. After granting waiver of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The appellants had imported a CT Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court and no stay of any such proceedings was ordered by the Court. In the circumstances, justifiably, the Commissioner (Appeals) took up the party s appeal for final disposal. He noted that the DGHS vide its letter dated 21-8-97 had rejected the request of the appellants to issue Installation Certificate for the CT Scanner in terms of the Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants had not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification, and accordingly affirmed the order of the lower authority. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the sides. Ld. Counsel concedes that the DGHS has not issued any Installation Certification till date. He submits that all other conditions of the Notification were fulfilled by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic centre was not a hospital within the meaning of this term under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. According to the SDR, the appellant-diagnostic centre was not eligible for the benefit of the notification. At this stage, ld. Counsel submits that no regular SCN was issued before the original authority took up the subject import for raising demand of duty. This submission is opposed by the SDR who points out that the order of the original authority on its face indicates that a notice of demand had been issued under Section 28 to the party. 5. We have considered the submissions. Both the lower authorities have found that the appellants had not fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. No fresh material has been placed on record by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Notification, whereby they disentitled themselves to the benefit of exemption from payment of Customs duty. We therefore confirm the demand of duty. 6. An alternative prayer made by the Counsel is to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) so that the appellants can have an opportunity to satisfy the lower appellate authority regarding fulfilment of the conditions of the Notification. On a perusal of a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the party before the lower appellate authority, we find that the appellants had undertaken before the Commissioner (Appeals) to produce installation certificate from the DGHS but could not fulfil the undertaking. No installation certificate has since been brought on record. Any remand to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
