9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a long drawn process of reasoning. We are afraid through the present ROM application the appellant is seeking to take a contrary view on a point of law which we have considered and disposed of. Such a course of action is not permissible in law. - Rectification denied. - Application No. C/ROM/98212/14, Appeal No. C/448/02 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - P. R. Chandrasekharan And Ramesh Nair,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Prakash Shah, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr A K Singh, Addl Comm (AR) ORDER Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The application for rectification of mistake has been preferred by the appellant, M/s Sunitidevi Singhania Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Thane in respect of Final Order NO. A/1497/14/CSTB/C.I dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no jurisdiction vested with the customs to proceed against the importer on ground of breach of conditions of the said notification post 28-2-1994. It is also contended that in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR (SC) 425], the apex Court had held that when a prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in NTB International Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (302) ELT 481 (Bom,)] wherein it was held that where the findings of a Tribunal are a result of ignoring the facts on record or failing to consider the averments made in the memorandum of appeal, then such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88-Cus was issued by the Director General of Health Services subject to the condition that - (i) the appellant undertakes to give free treatment, on an average to at least 40% of the outdoor patients; (ii) to give free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income less than ₹ 500/- per month and to keep for this purpose, at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and to give free treatment at charges either on the basis of income of the patients concerned or otherwise to patients other than those specified above. When the investigation was conducted to see whether these conditions were complied with, the appellant produced the records of IPD and OPD for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is bound legally to fulfil the terms and conditions of exemption. In Mediwell Hospital and health Care Pvt. Ltd. [ 1997 (89) ELT 425 (SC)], while considering the scope of notification 64/88-Cus, the hon'ble apex court held that ,- 12. While, therefore, we accept the contentions of Mr. Jaitley learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to get the certificate from Respondent No. 2 which would enable the appellant to import the equipment without payment of customs duty but at the same time we would like to observe that the very notification granting exemption must be construed to cast continuing obligation on the part of all those who have obtained the certificate from the appropriate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they can enforce realisation of the customs duty from them. The very same view was re-iterated in the Jagdish Cancer case which we have relied upon in 5.2 of the impugned order. Therefore, we have not committed any error while passing the impugned order as our decision is based on the Apex Court decision which, needless to say prevails over all other decisions. 4.3 We note that an identical question arose before a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Bharat Diagnostic Centre [2007 (207) ELT 113 (L.B.)] wherein the issue for consideration whether action taken for violation of conditions after rescinding of notification was valid or not. The said decision also pertained to notification No. 64/88-Cus and the Larger Bench held as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal analysis as above, we are not convinced with the argument of the appellant that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in respect of order dated 17-09-2014 passed by us. It is a settled position in law as held by the hon'ble Apex Court in R D C Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC)] re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to rectification of mistake apparent on record. Mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and mistake should not be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. We are afraid through the present ROM application the appellant is seeking to take a contrary view on a point of law which we have considered and disposed of. Such a course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
