TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms House. While classifying the goods under Tariff Item 90.17/18 of the CTA, the appellants styled them as 'life saving surgical & medical equipment', and claimed benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 vide Serial No. 22A. It was also claimed that the import was permissible under O.G.L. vide Item No. 38 in List-2 of Appendix-VI of the I.T.C. Policy for the year A.M. 1984-85. 2. The authorities, however, entertained a doubt about claim of the appellants for benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus, and also to their entitlement to have the import under the OGL. A notice to show cause was accordingly issued on 7-3-1985. After considering appellants' reply thereto, dated 20-3-1985, an order was passed by the Collector o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact, that the letter, since furnished by appellants, was sought to be relied upon as a material piece of evidence in support of the alternative claim, it was essential to have the Collector's comment on merits of the appellants' claim, in that light. The matter was, thus, remanded to the Collector of Customs, Bangalore, for re-adjudication in the light of the evidence produced by the appellants, after giving them opportunity of hearing. The Bench expressed hope that the Collector would keep in mind that the goods were under detention, and dispose of the matter, being remanded to him, expeditiously. 4. After receiving the matter by remand, a fresh show cause notice was issued on 14-2-1986, to which the appellants again duly rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the points made by the appellants; the Collector has not at all taken notice of the said certificate, or given his reasons for not accepting the same as good-evidence or otherwise not deserving of reliance. He seems to have been swayed by the fact that the certificate given by Dr. Bhat merited consideration because of the fact that that was based on an examination of a sample, sent from out of the imported goods, without adding a single comment in relation to the certificate from the Doctor from DGHS 6. The appeal was listed for early hearing on an application from the appellants because of the goods continuing to be under detention, and their being of such a nature that they could be prone to damage due to prolonged dis-use, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be taken into consideration; particularly, when in the Notification itself, even for matters which have been left un-specified by the Government, the 'Director General of Health Services' has been made a final authority to certify that particular goods in question could be treated as 'life saving equipment'. Appellants contend that in a case, where the certificate was only of a clarificatory nature, the Collector ought to have spelt out his reasons for not placing reliance on such a certificate. We, would, however, like to put on record that the order of remand passed earlier did not imply that certificate from the DGHS had to have unquestioned acceptance because, if that were so, it could have been taken into consideration and there wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not have placed such a reliance on the certificate of Dr. Bhat, based on such a sample. Although there was anxiety to have the matter finalised because of, as already pointed out, the goods being under detention, but we do not find it possible to get over this lapse by the Collector, in having the sample taken in the absence of the appellants, and having referred to the same to the expert without knowledge of and notice to appellants, and having not even referred to the same during the first adjudication proceedings. 11. Collector's observation, that the appellants have not taken steps to controvert the point made by him in his order, seems to be misconceived because unless the order was recorded, the appellants were not expected....