9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty leviable on the assessee in the backdrop of aforesaid Notifications - condition was imposed for deposit of 40% as a condition to afford opportunity of hearing. - The appellant shall make an application in this behalf within a period of two months along with deposit of 40% of the duty. On making of this application with the deposit, the same shall be considered by the Commissioner within a period of six months. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6575 OF 2003, 4947 AND 1049 OF 2008 AND 546 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2015 - MR. A.K. SIKRI AND MR. ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ. For The Appearing Parties : K. Radhakrishnan, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs. Ms. Binu Tamta,Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. S. Srivastava, Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations made in the impugned order. Against that order the Union of India has preferred this appeal. After going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has exercised its discretion on valid considerations and there is no reason to interfere with the said discretion exercised by the High Court in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The matter is relegated to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent on merits. Since much time has elapsed in between, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from today. In C.A. No. 546/2009 The appellant herein, which is a hospital had imported certain medical equipments. It had claimed exemption fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that it was run by a charitable organization. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove this claim either. Challenging that order the special leave petition was filed and leave in that matter was granted by this Court on 27-1-2009. It is how the instant appeal comes up for hearing. Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel at the outset submitted that he would not be pressing for the benefit of Notification 64/1988 dated 1-3-1988. On the other hand, he brought to our notice another Notification 65/1988 of the same date i.e. 1-3-1988 whereunder the rate of duty for such import is fixed at 40% for the import of these medical equipments. He, thus, submitted that the appellant would be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
