TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was not claimed by the appellant. The goods imported by the appellant is prima facie covered under general exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus, however eligibility of notification was not considered by the Original Adjudicating authority - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating authority to consider the eligibility of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus - it is of no significance that app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs, ACC, Mumbai. 2. The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitle for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus DATED 1/3/1988 which prescribe various conditions of free treatment to the poor patient and hospitalization of low income group patients. 3. Ms. Laxmi Menon, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they have given up the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to consider the matter a fresh. She further submits that in the identical issue this Tribunal had dropped the penalty in case of Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital Regional Cancer Centre Vs. C.C. Mumbai[2015(318) ELT 503(Tri. Mumbai] therefore she prays for waiver of penalty. 4. Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority to consider the eligibility of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus irrespective of appellant had not claimed the said notification at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry. We also find force in the argument that in the identical issue this Tribunal in case of Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital Regional Cancer Centre(supra) penalty was waived therefore penalty issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
