Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 1520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to Rapid Arc. The import goods were declared in Bill of Entry No. 7665281 dated 14.08.2012 with benefit of concessional duty under then prevalent Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 [S. No. 474 (ii) and Notification No. 21/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 [S. No. 93] as accessories of medical linear accelerator, classifiable under Heading 9022.90 of CTA75 and allowed clearance for home consumption after physical examination and on satisfaction of the proper officer of customs about proper and correct declaration of import items made on the bill of entry and payment of correct and appropriate duty assessed thereon. Hon ble Supreme Court has in case MEHRA BROS. VERSUS JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER [ 1990 (11) TMI 144 - SUPREME COURT] has held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l 2017 reversing the order in original and holding that the subject goods were accessories. The goods in question are linear accelerator with IMRT for radiological use in the detection of cancerous turnovers. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the imported goods with the descriptions Lot-1 upgrade to IGRT and Lot-2 upgrade to Rapid ARC were accessories which enhanced the efficiency of the linear accelerator. Hence, they were exibilble to a concessional rate of duty as opposed to the claim of the revenue tht they were parts of the linear accelerator with such benefit. Aggrieved the revenue preferred an appeal before the tribunal. Before the tribunal the question of facts were not closed and it was expected that the impugned order of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Accessories of Medical Radiotherpy Equipment . 5. From the above, it appears that the imported items were fully and correctly declared in the bills of entry and the Adjudicating Authority/ Department has not contradicted the description, value or any other material particular declared on the goods in the bill of entry. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby upheld for the reasons mentioned therein. 3. On the basis of intelligence an investigation was under-taken by DRI, and a Show Cause Notice, was issued to wherein respondent was called to show cause as to why:- (i) The concessional rate of BCD claimed under S. No. 474 (ii) of Notification No. 12/2012 Cus dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A of the Customs Act, 1062, should not be imposed on them for their willful acts and omissions, as discussed above. 4. This Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confirming the demands in the Show Cause Notice by imposing of penalties on the appellant. On appeal, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order, set aside the order the Assistant Commissioner. Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal which was earlier decided as per the Final order indicated in para 2. 5. Revenue challenged this order before the Hon ble High Court. As per order in para 1 remanded the matter for passing an speaking order Hon ble High Court have in its order stated that Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeal be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... priate duty assessed thereon. 8. The fact no disputed is that the Linac was already operational with the above referred Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital since the 2010 and the goods imported in 2012 wherein only to enhance the capabilities of the said machine already operational. Contention of Revenue is that the goods imported are nothing parts of the machine imported 2010 whereas contention of respondent is that these are accessories. 9. We find that Hon ble Supreme Court has in case Mehra Bros. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, 1991(51) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.) has held accessories to be adjuncts, accompaniments for enhancing functional capability, efficiency of the machine/equipment. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Del .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates