TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). 1.2. Show Cause Notice dated 16.09.2000 was issued to the appellant proposing above consequences on the allegation that the appellant failed to fulfil the conditions of the Notification although medical equipments were imported availing the benefit of Notification No.64/88-CUS, dated 01.03.1988 on the basis of certificate of DGHS. The DGHS reported that on the basis of information dated 21.04.2000, the patients were treated on payment. So also the general outdoor and general indoor patients were treated on same charges. Accordingly, no free services being provided, the appellant was liable to pay the duty foregone by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this ground was totally beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice and is a gross violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly adjudication proceeding is bad in law. 2.3. Appellant relied on following judgments in support of its contentions: (a) Commissioner Vs. Goodluck Industries [2000 (120) ELT A066 (SC)] (b) Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2003 (151) ELT 23 (Bom.)] (c) Alang Marine Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot [2006 (204) ELT 297 ) (d) Naresh Lokumal Serai Vs. CC, Raigad [2006 (203) ELT 580] 2.4. It was further submitted by the appellant that it had kept more than 10% of total number of beds reserved for patients having income less than Rs. 500/- p.m. in each department and provided free treatment to 40% out door ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at appellant was charging nominal fee towards registration. The other grounds about percentage of reservation etc. were added in the adjudication proceedings only on the basis of cancellation of some certificates. The Commissioner has also not considered the material produced by the appellant and appellant's records independently before reaching the conclusion. It would appear that the findings reached are without regard to the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M.S. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital as well as Bombay Hospital Trust. 2.8. Ld. Advocate for appellant further submitted that learned adjudicating commissioner failed to appreciate that Tribunal had not made any blanket remand. There was a specific remand to decide wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ients was specific instance of violation of the conditions of the notification, other conditions of the notification were also violated by the appellant. (3) When show cause notice brought to the notice of the appellant that all conditions of the notification were to be complied with by appellant, the appellant failing to comply with the same, was to suffer adjudication which is not beyond SCN. (4) Obligation to fulfill conditions of the Notification remains un-extinguished even after 10 years of import. Accordingly the duty forgone by the Government due to free import allowed to the appellant was liable to be recovered by the adjudication order since appellant failed to fulfill conditions thereof. (5) The demand raised by adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice was issued on the basis that appellant was charging nominal fee towards registration and learned authority below should have reached to the conclusion in the light of Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital as well as Bombay Hospital Trust. 7. In view of the above observation of the Tribunal, the issue of percentage of reservation etc. did not warrant scrutiny in the denovo adjudication proceeding. Except above allegation on charging of nominal fees, no specific violation of the condition of the Notification No. 64/1988 appeared in the Show cause notice. But learned Authority below came to the conclusion that there was contravention of the conditions of the notification. 8. Law is well settled that....