Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO.1 APPEAL NO.C/693/03-Mum (Arising out of Order-in- Original No.CAO:44/03/CAC/CC-1/AH dtd.18.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr S.S.Kang, Vice President Honble Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan
:
Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance
Lakshmi Menon, Advocate for Appellants
D.Nagveukar, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for Respondent
CORAM:
Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President
Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical)
Date of hearing: 27/03/2014
Date of decision 27/03/2014
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S.Kang
Heard both sides.
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of customs duty of Rs. 15,35,846/- is confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No.64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 in respect of medical equipment imported by the appellants. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of medical equipment declaring the same as Phased Array Doppler System Model SSD-631 on Doppler and claimed benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The goods were cleared without payment of duty as per the provisions of the Notification. Subsequently, it was found that the appellants had not fulfilled the condition of the Notification. Therefore, the Director General of Health Services vide letter dated 9.11.2000 withdrew the Custom duty exemption certificate on the ground that the appellants failed to fulfill the post import conditions. Show-cause notice was issued by the customs authorities for demand of duty by denying the benefit of Notification No.64/88. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty.
4. During the argument, the ld.counsel for the appellants submitted that now the appellants are not claiming the benefit of Notification No.64/88. Alternatively the appellants were claiming the benefit of Notification No.65/88-Cus before the adjudicating authority. As per the Notification No.65/88-Cus the effective rate of customs duty is 40%. The claim was not considered by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. The contention of the appellants is that in case the benefit of Notification No.65/88-Cus is allowed, the duty liability comes to Rs.5,06,253/-. The appellants seek remand to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim under Notification No.65/88-Cus .
5. Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the appellants failed to show that they have fulfilled the post import condition of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus and the demand is rightly made.
6. We find that the appellants not claimed the benefit of Notification No.64/88. They claimed the benefit of Notification No.65/88-Cus before the adjudicating authority. This claim was not considered by the adjudicating authority. As per the provisions of Notification No.65/88-Cus, the duty liability comes to Rs. 5,06,253/-. In these circumstances, the appellants are directed to deposit Rs. 5.06,253/- with the jurisdictional Commissioner within a period of eight weeks. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. On showing the proof of deposit of the above mentioned amount, the adjudicating authority will examine the issue of eligibility of Notification No.65/88-Cus after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appellants shall appear before the adjudicating authority on 10.6.2014 with the proof of deposit and thereafter the adjudicating authority will decide in accordance with law.
(Dictated in court) P.K.Jain Member(Technical) S. S. Kang Vice President pv 3