TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal is allowed Regarding interpretation of Notification - he life of the Notification 64/88 is the period from1-3-1988 to28-2-1994. In the present case, the appellants imported the goods on 9-1-1992. The point is, by virtue of import of medical equipments free of duty under Notification 64/88, the appellants are under obligation to fulfill the conditions of the Notification. The period of the obligation is from the date of import to the date of rescission of the Notification. The violation of the Notification may be noticed by the authorities either during the life of the Notification or afterwards. It is the contention of the appellants that if the violation of the Notification during the period of its life is detected after the rescis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter under Section 112 (a) of the Act, apart from demanding duty of over Rs.76.00 lakhs from them. Appeal No.C/1468/02 filed by the hospital against the said order-in-original No.52/02 was allowed by this bench vide order No.A/348/10/CSTB/C-II dated06/10/2010. 2. The operative part of order-in-original No.400/2002 dated 22/10/2002 passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 07/02/2002 covering the medical equipments, which were cleared through the Customs House, Mumbai, read as follows:- a) I order the confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.12,96,370/- mentioned in Annexure 1 to the present show cause notice under the provisions of Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the importer may rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allege any such breach of conditions for any period prior to28/02/94, the date on which the Notification was rescinded. Therefore, the above final order is squarely applicable to the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR submits that, in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science Vs. Commissioner 2008 (231) ELT 113 (Tri-Mumbai), this bench had, on a similar sets of facts, held that a hospital which had imported medical equipments duty-free in terms of Notification No.64/88-Cus could be proceeded against even after the date of rescission of Notification on the ground that they committed breach of the conditions of the Notification after such date. It is submitted that, in the said case, this bench had relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. A/348/2010/CSTB/C-II dated06/10/2010ibid. Both the show-cause notices were issued on the basis of the results of common investigations. The imports through the Air Cargo Complex and the imports covered by the present case were made during the same period (August 1988 to August 1993). The show-cause notices raised identical allegations and proposals. The substantive issue in both the case is essentially the same, i.e., whether it was open to the department to initiate action against the appellant after28/02/1994(date of rescission of the Notification No.64/88-Cus) on the ground that they violated the conditions of Notification after the said date. After considering the case law including the Madras High Courts judgement in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
