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>Appeal granted, equipment confiscation overturned, penalty set aside. Duty liability upheld, enforcement halted due to invalid notice.</h1> <h3>JAGDISH CANCER & RESEARCH CENTRE Versus CC (IMPORT), MUMBAI</h3> JAGDISH CANCER & RESEARCH CENTRE Versus CC (IMPORT), MUMBAI - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Bar of Limitation2. Confiscation of Imported Equipment3. Compliance with Notification Conditions4. Validity of Show Cause Notice5. Duty LiabilityIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bar of LimitationThe appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued after nine years from the date of clearance of goods, invoking the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner, who issued the notice, was not authorized by the Board to do so, making the notice illegal and without jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted this contention, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ranadey Micronutrients v. C.C.E., which states that departmental clarifications and circulars issued by the CBEC are binding on revenue officers.2. Confiscation of Imported EquipmentThe primary ground for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was the non-production of an installation certificate. However, the adjudicating authority conceded that such a certificate was not required in this case. The tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specifically allege other conditions' violations as grounds for confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation could not be upheld for want of specific allegations in the show cause notice.3. Compliance with Notification ConditionsThe appellant argued that the notification did not specify a particular period within which the free treatment to at least 40% of outdoor patients had to be given. They provided statistics showing compliance over the equipment's life span. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had not met the conditions of the notification, as the free treatment percentage was below the required 40% and there was no inpatient facility. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I., which emphasized continuous compliance with notification conditions.4. Validity of Show Cause NoticeThe tribunal found that the show cause notice was not issued by a proper officer as defined under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner was not authorized by the Board to issue such a notice, making it invalid. This lack of authorization rendered the notice illegal and without jurisdiction.5. Duty LiabilityDespite the invalidity of the show cause notice, the tribunal held that the duty liability was sustainable due to the appellant's failure to comply with the notification conditions. However, enforcement of this liability was not possible due to the invalid show cause notice. The department was given the liberty to take necessary steps in light of the tribunal's observations.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation of the imported equipment and the penalty. While the duty liability was upheld, it could not be enforced due to the invalid show cause notice. The department was permitted to take further action as necessary.
TaxTMI 