https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83098 A mere inspection impression that imported equipment appeared old was held insufficient to prove misdeclaration or reconditioning; without expert evidence or supporting enquiry, confiscation and redemption fine could not be sustained. On exemption, the DGHS certificate was treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 64/88-Cus. because the notification's language and explanation extended to diagnostic institutions, and a restrictive insistence on a separate inpatient hospital was found inconsistent with its object. The import was therefore treated as lawful on the facts proved, and denial of exemption was set aside. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:10:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83098 A mere inspection impression that imported equipment appeared old was held insufficient to prove misdeclaration or reconditioning; without expert evidence or supporting enquiry, confiscation and redemption fine could not be sustained. On exemption, the DGHS certificate was treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 64/88-Cus. because the notification's language and explanation extended to diagnostic institutions, and a restrictive insistence on a separate inpatient hospital was found inconsistent with its object. The import was therefore treated as lawful on the facts proved, and denial of exemption was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83098