https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128866 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to discrepancies in Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) issued by DGHS and the hospital's failure to fulfill conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Despite the hospital's claims of possessing records for compliance, the appeal was dismissed for lack of evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, stating that an appeal can be dismissed for default if the appellant fails to appear. The application for rectification under Rule 31A was also dismissed as all substantial grounds were considered in the final order. en-us Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:56:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128866 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to discrepancies in Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) issued by DGHS and the hospital's failure to fulfill conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Despite the hospital's claims of possessing records for compliance, the appeal was dismissed for lack of evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, stating that an appeal can be dismissed for default if the appellant fails to appear. The application for rectification under Rule 31A was also dismissed as all substantial grounds were considered in the final order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128866