TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants duty exemption for NMRI Scanner, refunds ordered</h1> <h3>DIASCANS (INDIA) LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA</h3> The Tribunal unconditionally allowed the stay petition, dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty. The appellants successfully claimed ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.2. Exemption claim under Notification No. 64/88-Cus for imported NMRI Scanner.3. Dispute regarding the transfer and disposal of the machine.4. Allegations of non-compliance with statutory requirements and documentary evidence.5. Interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order and the affidavit conditions.6. Prima facie assessment of the case and decision on the stay petition.Issue 1: Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty:The application sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty totaling Rs. 63,02,542 and Rs. 20,00,000, respectively. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimately allowing the stay petition unconditionally.Issue 2: Exemption claim under Notification No. 64/88-Cus for imported NMRI Scanner:The appellants imported an NMRI Scanner and claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus, supported by a certificate from the DGHS. However, Customs Authorities initially rejected the certificate, leading to legal battles culminating in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order directing the refund of the deposited customs duty amount.Issue 3: Dispute regarding the transfer and disposal of the machine:Subsequent events revealed that the machine, after being installed at a hospital under an agreement, was found dismantled at a different location. The Customs Department seized the machine, alleging non-compliance with transfer notification requirements, triggering a show cause notice and an adverse order by the Commissioner of Customs.Issue 4: Allegations of non-compliance with statutory requirements and documentary evidence:The Commissioner's order highlighted the appellants' failure to meet duty exemption prerequisites and provide acceptable documentary evidence. Discrepancies in the intimation process and withdrawal of the DGHS certificate were also noted, leading to the confiscation of the machine.Issue 5: Interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order and the affidavit conditions:The Tribunal analyzed the Supreme Court's order and the affidavit conditions submitted by the appellants, emphasizing the requirement of a 30-day notice before transferring the machine. Despite challenges in producing the receipted copy of the notice, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants based on the settled conditions.Issue 6: Prima facie assessment of the case and decision on the stay petition:After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal concurred with the appellants' contentions regarding the settled Supreme Court decision. It concluded that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reevaluate the conditions and allowed the stay petition unconditionally, acknowledging the machine's custody and redemption fine option.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved, detailing the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's final decision on each aspect of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
