https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114092 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the absence of indoor facilities at the Diagnostic Centre did not disqualify them from duty exemption under Notification 64/88. It was established that the Customs Duty Exemption certificate had been issued and acted upon by the Customs Department despite the lack of indoor facilities. The Tribunal held that penalties imposed on both the proprietor and the firm for the same act of import and confiscation were unwarranted. As a result, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals against confiscation were allowed. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 11:37:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114092 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the absence of indoor facilities at the Diagnostic Centre did not disqualify them from duty exemption under Notification 64/88. It was established that the Customs Duty Exemption certificate had been issued and acted upon by the Customs Department despite the lack of indoor facilities. The Tribunal held that penalties imposed on both the proprietor and the firm for the same act of import and confiscation were unwarranted. As a result, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals against confiscation were allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114092