9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 01.03.1988, confiscation of the goods imported and recovery of differential duty of customs etc. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority interalia confirmed the proposals made in the SCN vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2002, confiscated the goods imported however gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,75,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed the demand of differential Customs duty and also imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate submitted that the matter relating to the import had been agitated in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well as the High Court of Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the writ petition, SLP was preferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice on the appeal filed by the Medwin Hospital and had further stated that no coercive steps to be taken for recovery of impugned demand. 11. 04.08.2003 The Hon'ble Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the High Court of Andhra Pardesh for determining whether the Medwin Hospital is division of the Jaya Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd (the appellant). 12. 01.01.2004 This Hon'ble Tribunal had passed the stay order directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 8,50,000/- within a period of three months and report compliance on 02,04,2004. 13. 09.06.2004 This Hon'ble Tribunal dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, pointed out that while the goods are orthopaedic tractor fluoroscopic operating table and universal operating tables, it is not known whether they would satisfy the requirement of S.No. 5 of Part-C of Notification No. 65/88-Cus as mended by the notification No. 123/94-Cus dated 3.6.1994, viz., S.No. 5 Operating Table Electro Hydraulic type. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6. We already find that on similar issue the Tribunal vide Final Order cited by the ld. Advocate allowed alternate benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to the appellant. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced for better appreciation of the facts:- "3. The main point urged before us is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d C/255/2004 to their original numbers. (ii) We set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 26.02.2004. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Commissioner only for re-computation of the duty liability in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. dated 01.03.1988, which provides 40% Effective rate of duty. (iv) The penalty on Shri B.K. Rao, Managing Director, is set aside and his appeal is allowed." We also note that in compliance of the said final order departmental denovo adjudication have also been completed allowing the benefit. In the event, we do not find any reason or fresh ground to deny the same benefit to the present import. 7. Accordingly, following the ratio already laid down by the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
