Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty in a dispute concerning eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-88 on the basis of the percentage of free patient treatment.
Analysis: The applicant had imported medical equipment and claimed exemption under the notification. The record showed that in most of the relevant years the percentage of free treatment exceeded 40%, and the shortfall was confined to only a couple of years. The governing principle applied was that the condition in the notification was to be satisfied generally throughout the period and a later or isolated period could not ordinarily be used to cure a deficiency. On the facts, the applicant established a strong prima facie case for interim relief.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty and the stay application was allowed.