2015 (6) TMI 221 - SC - Customs

Court Directs Timely Assessment of Duty Rates and Benefits under Notifications

Grant Medical Foundation Versus Commissioner

The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner to consider eligibility criteria under Notification 65/88 within three months in Civil Appeal No. 5596/2008, ... Eligibility criteria as per Notification 65/88, dated 1-3-1988 & Notification No. 118/86, dated 7-2-1986 - Seeking direction to Commissioner to do needful within a stipulated time - Held that:- In our considered opinion, the submission made by Mr. Shridharan is absolutely fair and we accept the same and accordingly, it is directed that the concerned Commissioner shall consider the direction issued by the Tribunal in the backdrop of the Notification which we have reproduced hereinabove within a period of three months after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We may hasten to add that for availing an opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner, the assessee-appellant shall deposit 40% ad valorem if the same has not been realised from him. We have not addressed to any aspect, namely, the applicability of Notification or modification of rate of interest. - Appeal accordingly disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Notification 65/88 for eligibility criteria.2. Consideration of Notification No. 65/88 and No. 118/86 by the Commissioner.3. Applicability of Notification 65/88 and 118/86 for rate of duty.4. Remand of the matter in light of relevant notifications.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification 65/88 for eligibility criteriaIn Civil Appeal No. 5596/2008, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Commissioner to consider eligibility criteria under Notification 65/88. The appellant's counsel highlighted the Notification's provisions, emphasizing the Commissioner's obligation to assess eligibility within a stipulated time frame. The Supreme Court accepted the submission, directing the Commissioner to consider the Tribunal's direction within three months, with a deposit requirement of 40% ad valorem by the appellant.Issue 2: Consideration of Notification No. 65/88 and No. 118/86 by the CommissionerIn Civil Appeal Nos. 6117-6118/2008, the Court directed the Commissioner to evaluate if the appellant could benefit from Notifications 65/88 and 118/86. The Commissioner was instructed to decide within six months, without imposing a deposit condition as it had already been fulfilled. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on admissibility or interest imposition.Issue 3: Applicability of Notification 65/88 and 118/86 for rate of dutyCivil Appeal No. 5000/2006 involved the consideration of the rate of duty under Notifications 65/88 and 118/86. The Court directed the Commissioner to assess the duty rate within four months, given that the duty amount had already been deposited. The appellant was required to submit a specific application for consideration, with an opportunity for a hearing provided by the Commissioner.Issue 4: Remand of the matter in light of relevant notificationsIn Civil Appeal No. 6600/2008, the Court directed the Commissioner to assess if the appellant could benefit from the relevant Notification, similar to previous cases. The Commissioner was given six months to make a decision after providing a hearing opportunity to the appellant. The Court did not impose a deposit condition due to the appellant's prior compliance.Overall, the Supreme Court's judgments focused on ensuring the proper consideration of Notifications 65/88 and 118/86 by the Commissioner, emphasizing timely assessments and hearing opportunities for the appellants without imposing additional deposit conditions.