TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification of 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-98 and hence in view of this, and also respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science and Others v. CC (ACC), Mumbai, we hold that the confirmation of the demand of the duty as has been done by the Adjudicating authority is correct. The impugned Order to that extent is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant on this point is rejected. - C/343/2003 - 802/2009 - Dated:- 5-5-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or parted with or otherwise dealt with in any manner, prejudicial to the enquiry except with the written permission of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Mysore. A show cause notice dated 16-7-1990 was issued to the importer directing them to reply as to why the provisional assessment made at the time of clearance should not be finalized, by assessing the goods denying the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 and confirming a demand of Rs.37,03,546/- and why the unit i.e. telecobaltherapy unit be not confiscated under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty be not imposed on them under 112(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed the reply before the adjudicating authorities. The Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave complied with the entire conditions of the Notification No. 64/88 in as much as they have treated 40% outpatients department under free treatment and they had reserved 10% of the beds in the hospital for the poor who have got income less than Rs.500/- per month. It is his submission that as on today the entire issue is against them by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science and Others v. CC (ACC), Mumbai as reported at 2008 (231) E.L.T. 113 (Tri.-Mum.). He submitted that since the appellant is a hospital treating patients for cancer, some leniency in setting aside the redemption fine, penalty and interest be shown. 5. Learned SDR on the other hand would submit that the certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification of 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-98 and hence in view of this, and also respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science (supra), we hold that the confirmation of the demand of the duty as has been done by the Adjudicating authority is correct. The impugned Order to that extent is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant on this point is rejected. 7. Now coming to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, we find that when the appellant imported the machinery, he did not provide the original copy of the, CDEC certificate to the Authorities. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
