9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an cited by the CHA in Bill of Entry and the Appellant is eligible for the exemption. The wrong serial number of notification mentioned during filling of Bill of Entry was not intended. In such case it was not an intentional act of evading duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the exemption available to external DCD on the ground that the DEC certificate was not produced at the time of importation of goods - Held that:- The identity and nature of goods is not in dispute. Even though assuming that the duty exemption certificate was not produced at the time of clearance due to lapse on the part of the CHA but the fact remains that the appellant are eligible for the exemption which is not in dispute. In such case even if the certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods it was observed that the goods are for external use and were thus not covered by the exemption under Sr. No. 363A; that the goods DCD for external use are specifically covered in list 8(C), Sr No.110 of notification for which rate of duty specified was 15% under Sr. No. 94 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002. Accordingly SCN proposing to deny the exemption availed by the appellant and demanding differential duty of ₹ 5,43,455/- under Section 28(1) and to confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(m) of Customs Act,1962 was issued. It also proposed to impose penalty under Section 114A and/or Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant filed reply to SCN contending that the device is used for the he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said notification and duty exemption certificate in terms of notification was issued by the Director (Medical Education and Public Health) of Bombay Municipal Corporation on 18.03.2002; that the clearing agent was asked to clear the consignment vide their letter dated 10.10.2005 and the said DEC certificate was enclosed. She submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has refused to extend the exemption under Sr. No. 362 on the ground that in terms of Sr. No. 362 and Condition No.77 (C), the Certificate of the head of the Hospital certifying that the imported equipment is meant for use in the hospital and is essential for running and maintenance of hospital was not produced at the time of clearance. She submits that the non submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act of evading duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the exemption available to external DCD on the ground that the DEC certificate was not produced at the time of importation of goods. We find that the identity and nature of goods is not in dispute. Even though assuming that the duty exemption certificate was not produced at the time of clearance due to lapse on the part of the CHA but the fact remains that the appellant are eligible for the exemption which is not in dispute. In such case even if the certificate is produced belatedly, the same cannot be made ground to deny the benefit of exemption to hospital. Our views are also based on the Tribunal s judgment in case of Bajaj Tempo V/s. CCE- 2004 (165) E.L.T.323. We are thus of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
