TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No.64/88-Cus dated 01/03/88 on the strength of Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) issued by the Directorate-General of Health Services (DGHS), New Delhi. Many of these equipments were cleared through the Air Cargo Complex at Sahar and the rest through Customs House, Mumbai. The goods cleared through the Customs House are the subject matter of the present appeal. The goods cleared through the Air Cargo Complex were the subject matter of another show-cause notice, in adjudication of which the Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai passed order-in-original No.52/02 dated 07/08/2002 confiscating the goods under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act with option for redemption thereof against payment of fine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Commissioner, the learned Counsel submits that the impugned order is only liable to be set aside by following order No.A/348/2010/CSTB/C-II dated 06/10/2010 inasmuch as the two show-cause notices were issued on the basis of the results of common investigations and the substantial issue involved in the present case is identical to the one settled by this bench in the earlier case. It is submitted that, as rightly held by this bench in order No. A/348/2010/CSTB/C-II dated06/10/2010ibid, the department has no jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant-hospital in terms of Notification No.64/88-Cus on the ground that they committed breach of conditions of Notification after the date on which it was rescinded. It is submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar sets of facts, between the decision of this bench in Central India Institute of Medical Science case and order No.A/348/2010/CSTB/C-II dated 06/10/2010 passed by this bench in appeal No.C/1468/02 in the earlier case of the present appellant. It is suggested that the issue be referred to a Larger Bench. 5. The learned Counsel has opposed the plea for reference to Larger Bench. He submits that the decision of the Larger Bench in Bharat Diagnostic Centres case has already settled the same issue against the Revenue and the same is binding on this bench. There is no conflict of views in the face of the Larger Benchs decision and hence there is no reason for any reference as suggested by the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inasmuch as our decision is supported by the following findings of the Larger Bench in Bharat Diagnostic Centre case. A careful reading of the above Paragraphs reveal that the authorities can enforce the obligations only during the period when 64/88 was in force and not for the subsequent period. How to interpret this? The life of the Notification 64/88 is the period from1-3-1988 to28-2-1994. In the present case, the appellants imported the goods on 9-1-1992. The point is, by virtue of import of medical equipments free of duty under Notification 64/88, the appellants are under obligation to fulfill the conditions of the Notification. The period of the obligation is from the date of import to the date of rescission of the Notification. Th....