TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-C to the Notification, as amended - penalty set aside - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand. - C/457/2002 - Final Order No.42249/2017 - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The appellant had imported one set of Orthopaedic Tractor Fluoroscopic Operating Table and one set of Universal Operating Table which were cleared provisionally under Customs Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 01.03.1988. SCN dated 07.12.2001 was issued proposing denial of benefit of Notification No.64/88 dated 01.03.1988, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S had withdrawn the certificate on the ground that the appellant is not having indoor patient facilities. 5. 1998 The Medwin Hospital had filed a writ petition bearing no. 1544/98 challenging the DGHS order withdrawing the certificate, on the ground that the Medwin Hospital is the part and parcel of the appellant. 6. 07.12.2001 The respondent had issued the show cause notice proposing to deny the benefit of notification 64/88. 7. 18.06.2002 The Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by the Medwin Hospital. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Hon ble Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order. 14. 2004 The appellant had challenged the order o dismissal of appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No. 30342 of 2004. 15. 2005 The Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the cancellation of CDEC certificate and directed the DGHS to re-consider the issue. No. orders have been passed till date by the DGHS. 16 14.07.2017 The Hon ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 30342 of 2004 granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Hon ble Tribunal if there we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited by the ld. Advocate allowed alternate benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to the appellant. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced for better appreciation of the facts:- 3. The main point urged before us is that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus for most of the items imported by them and the said Notification provides Effective Rate of duty at 40%. In that case, the duty liability requires to be recomputed. Since the Commissioner has not examined the applicability of the said Notification, the impugned order deserves to be set aside for de novo adjudication with regard to the correct liability of the appellant in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. 3.1 The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
