TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The appellants had imported two medical equipments and cleared the same free of duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. vide Bills of Entry Nos. 44553 and 44555, dated 12-11-92. Such clearances were allowed on the basis of a Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) produced from the Director General of Health Services. An Installation Certificate was also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 40% under the notification. It was, further, found by the DGHS that all indoor patients whose family income was less than Rs. 500/- per month had not been given free treatment in terms of the notification. These findings of the DGHS, duly communicated to the Commissioner, formed the basis for the finding of the latter that the importer had committed breach of the crucial post-importation condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fends the impugned order on the strength of case-law. 5. We have examined the submissions. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that the appellants are also liable to pay duty of Rs. 7,68,445/- on the equipments which were imported by them claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. It has however been observed that it is not possible to demand the duty on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 500/- per month. This finding of the DGHS, based on the data collected by him, is not under challenge. The DGHS's communication to the Commissioner has also been incorporated in the impugned order, and we find that no finding of fact recorded thereunder is under challenge in this appeal. There is also a finding that Installation Certificate as required under the notification was not produced. T....