Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Jaya Diagnostic and Research Centre Ltd. Versus CC (Sea) , Chennai

2017 (10) TMI 475 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Benefit of N/N. 65/88-Cus. - import of Orthopaedic Tractor Fluoroscopic Operating Table - case of Revenue is that while the goods are orthopaedic tractor fluoroscopic operating table and universal operating tables, it is not known whether they would satisfy the requirement of S.No. 5 of Part-C of N/N. 65/88-Cus as mended by the N/N. 123/94-Cus dated 3.6.1994, viz., S.No. 5 Operating Table Electro Hydraulic type - Held that: - the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority only for re-computat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espondent 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, confiscation of the goods imported and recovery of differential duty of customs etc. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority interalia c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t had been agitated in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well as the High Court of Madras on different occasions. He submitted a date and event chart which is reproduced as follows:- Sl No. Date Event 1. 23.11.1989 & 18.06.1990 The appellant imported Medical Equipment and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1998. 2. - The imported goods were installed in Medwin Hospital a division of the appellant. 3. 11.03.1992 The provisional assessments in the bills of entry we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 The Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by the Medwin Hospital. 8. 24.07.2002 The respondent passed the impugned order-in-original no. 140/2002 deny the benefit of the said notification and confirmed the demand of duty. The respondent had further imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1,75,000/- and penalty of ₹ 35,000/- 9. 2002 The appellant had filed the appeal against the impugned order-in-original no. 140/2002 dated 24.07.2002 before this Hon ble Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hospital is division of the Jaya Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd (the appellant). 12. 01.01.2004 This Hon ble Tribunal had passed the stay order directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 8,50,000/- within a period of three months and report compliance on 02,04,2004. 13. 09.06.2004 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.9.2007 of CESTAT Bangalore, involving similar imports of medical equipment under Notification No. 64/1988-Cus., where the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner to re-compute the duty liability in terms of Notification No. 65/1988-Cus. The ld. Advocate further submits that in denovo proceedings the concerned adjudicating authority, vide an order-in-original No. 16/2008 dated 26.11.2008, in compliance with the Tribunal order had interalia allowed the benefit of Notification No. 65/1988-Cus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her they would satisfy the requirement of S.No. 5 of Part-C of Notification No. 65/88-Cus as mended by the notification No. 123/94-Cus dated 3.6.1994, viz., S.No. 5 Operating Table Electro Hydraulic type. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6. We already find that on similar issue the Tribunal vide Final Order 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 apprec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. 3.1 The appellants had stated that they accorded free treatment to 40% of the out patients and reservation of 10% of the beds for in-patient treatment of the deserving patients free of charge. They submitted the records maintained by them to the Director, Medical Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 07.06.1995. Subsequently, when Notification No. 64/88 was rescinded, even though the appellants continued to extend the free treatment to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version