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>Court rules in favor of petitioner in customs duty case on hospital equipment import under Notification No. 64/88.</h1> <h3>K. JAYANTHI MOHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a customs duty case involving the import of hospital equipment under Notification No. 64/88. Emphasizing the ... Recovery of Customs Duty with Interest on the basis of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - demand made without being preceded by an adjudication of the duty payable - hospital equipments released earlier to the petitioner, consequent to the order of adjudication dated 9-1-2001 only imposing redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IMPORT [2015 (4) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT] where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held had once the show cause notice has been issued under Section 124 proposing only confiscation of imported machinery and imposition of penalty and nothing was stated about payment of duty but there was no determination of the amount of duty payable in the adjudication order, the duty cannot be demanded separately. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in the Petitioner’s case - Petition disposed off. Issues involved:1. Import of hospital equipments under Notification No. 64/88.2. Demand for customs duty without prior adjudication.3. Applicability of judgment in Fortis Hospital Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.4. Relief sought in the writ petitions.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns the import of hospital equipments under Notification No. 64/88. The court noted that the equipments were released to the petitioner without any duty demand being confirmed initially. However, a demand for duty was raised in 2009 without prior adjudication of the duty payable. The court emphasized the importance of adjudication to allow the petitioner to contest the duty and claim benefits under other notifications if applicable.2. The court referenced the judgment in Fortis Hospital Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, highlighting that if a show cause notice only proposes confiscation and penalty without determining the duty payable, duty cannot be demanded separately. The respondent also agreed that the ratio of this judgment applied to the present case. Consequently, the court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, directing the quashing of the demand notices for customs duty with interest.3. The judgment concludes by disposing of the petitions after granting the requested relief. The court's decision was based on the principles established in the referenced case law and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the necessity of proper adjudication before demanding customs duty. The relief sought in the writ petitions was granted by issuing appropriate writs to quash the impugned actions and notices demanding customs duty with interest.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court highlights the issues involved, the legal principles applied, and the final relief granted to the petitioner based on the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
