TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stay applications, the appellants seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 5,09,53,917.00 and equivalent penalty under Section 114A in addition to imposition of penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs each on the employees and stay of the recovery proceedings. 3. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay petitions filed by the applicants, we find that the matter itself can be disposed off on the limited issue. In the view we have taken, the amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeals is dispensed with and appeals are taken for regular hearing with the consent of both sides. 4. Shri B.V. Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the appellant M/s. Wipro GE Medical Sys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively and demanded the duty therein. In addition to demand of duty, he also demanded interest under Section 28AB apart from imposing mandatory penalty under Section 114A and personal penalties on the executives of the Company. In other words, the Commissioner was of the view that exemption from duty is not available to Ultra sound Scanners (A Scan/Pacchy meter), if such equipment is not used for ophthalmic applications. 6. Shri Kumar said that the Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion based upon the Notfn. No. 144/88. He said that the omission of the wordings 'Sight Saving equipments' in subsequent Notfn. Nos. 57/95 and 16/2000 were not taken into consideration for interpreting the said notifications. Further he said that in vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... form in the body of the notification. The Conference felt that since the present notification does not incorporate any such qualification or restriction, exemption should be available as long as the goods are covered by the notification." 7. Inspite of the clarification issued by the tariff conference, the Commissioner erred in holding that the decision of the Conference was with reference to Ultrasound Scanners whereas the items imported and the present dispute made in earlier paras there is a clear cut distinction between Ultrasound Scanners and Ultrasound Scanners (A Scan/Pacchy meter). Further, he said that following technical literature was placed before the Commissioner to show that Ultrasonic Equipments with A Scan is used f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the Commissioner in denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notfn. l6/2000-Cus., dtd. 1-3-2000, since the impugned item as such cannot be used for ophthalmic purpose and further she submitted that the technical literature placed before the Commissioner was considered as can be seen from Para 121 of the impugned order. She drew our attention to the relevant portion which is as follows : - "M/s. Wipro GB vide their letter dated 29-9-2000 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Bangalore for clearance of LOGIQ PRO 200 series Black and White Ultrasonic Equipment A-scan and as well as parts for manufacturing model LA 100 and RT-3200 Ultrasonic Equipment enclosed copies of the following documents : (a) &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, as can be seen from the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the exemption from duty is not available to Ultrasound Scanners (A Scan/Pacchy meter) if such equipments, is not used for ophthalmic applications. It was the contention of the party that the Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion based on the communication of Notfn. 144/88-Cus., dtd. 18-4-88. But he has not properly considered the specific omission of the wordings 'sight saving equipment' in the Notfns. 57/95 and 16/2000 respectively. Further more, the omission of the wordings 'sight saving equipments' has been subscribed for the first time in Notfn. No. 17/2001, dtd. 1-3-2001 as "Ophthalmic equipments" after it was dropped from Notfn. 57/95, dtd. 16-3-95. Fur....