TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Condonation of Delay' Application. Therefore, after hearing both sides, we condone the delay of the appeal. 3. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner in remanded proceedings. The original order was set aside by this Bench and the Commissioner was directed to consider the alternate plea of the assessee for benefit of Customs Notification No. 63/88-Cus. In the remanded proceedings, the learned Commissioner found the assessee not eligible for such benefit and, accordingly, demanded duty of Rs. 17,76,196/- in the context of confiscating goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 4. As regards redemption fine and penalty, the learned Commissioner observed that the same were also payable by the assessee as per the Order-in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a hospital as defined in Notification No. 63/88-Cus., is not eligible for the benefit thereof. It is submitted that, though the appellant appears to be a 'trust', they do not render any medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment as they do not have any hospital or other medical institution of their own. It is further submitted that the account shown by the appellant today indicate sizeable receipts in the form of scan charges and grant from Pune Municipal Corporation for poor patients for the aforesaid purpose and, therefore, the counsel's plea of financial hardships may not be accepted. 7. After considering the submissions, we have not found prima facie case on merits against the demand of duty. The view taken by the learned Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e original order passed by the Commissioner was sustained by this Tribunal vide remand order and, consequently, the confiscation of the imported equipments and the fine and penalty stood sustained. The plea of financial hardships raised today by the learned counsel does not find a place in the text of the stay application. Nevertheless, we have considered this plea. The very document produced by the learned counsel indicates that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs from the Municipal Corporation as grant for poor patients and an amount of Rs. 17,93,561 as scan charges from patients in the year 2009-10. On the debit side, the appellant has indicated an amount of Rs. 2.40 lakhs towards scan charges for poor patients. As the appell....