TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant against order dated 30/01/02 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, wherein a customs duty demand of Rs. 95,92,213/- was confirmed against the appellant apart from confiscation of the imported medical equipment valued at Rs. 1.07 crore with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakhs and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for violation of the post importation condition stipulated in notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1-3-1988 leading to denial of duty exemption under the said notification. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is an error apparent on the fact of the record in the said order passed by this Tribunal. It is pointed out that the appellant, in their a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an error in the impugned order by holding that the denial of benefit of notification No. 64/88-Cus is unsustainable in law. 3. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand would submit that there is no error committed by the Tribunal as contended by the appellant. It is his contention that in para 5.2 of the impugned order, it has been clearly observed that the question of time-bar for demand of duty will not arise as notification 64/88-Cus imposes a continuing obligation on the importer with regard to the provisions of free medical treatment as held by the apex Court in Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre [2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC)]. It is his further submission that the appellant had executed a bond for com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requirement of 40% stipulated in the notification. Similarly free IPD treatment was found to be 1.2%, 0.36% an 0.81% as against the statutory requirement of 10%. The appellant did not produce any account whatsoever with regard to the compliance of the notification for the previous years. These facts of the case are not in dispute. Therefore, the medical equipment imported by the appellant were confiscated for violation of post importation conditions under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine under section125 of the Customs Act. As observed by us in para 5.2 of the impugned order, payment of duty under section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the outdoor patients as well as would give free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to the families with an income of less than Rs. 500/- p.m. The competent authority, therefore, should continue to be vigilant and check whether the undertakings given by the applicants are being duly complied with after getting the benefit of the exemption notification and importing the equipment without payment of customs duty and if on such enquiry the authorities are satisfied that the continuing obligation are not being carried out then it would be fully open to the authority to ask the person who have availed of the benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipments which have been imported without payment of customs d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63, the rescission of Notification 64/88 does not affect the liability acquired, accrued or incurred by the petitioners with regard to fulfilment of Clause 2(b) of the said Notification. It may be pointed out that in all the cases relating to violation of conditions of Notification 64/88, action was taken only after the rescission of notification 64/88. If it is held that no action at all can be taken after the rescission of the Notification, such a view would invalidate the actions taken against the erring hospitals and would render it an exercise in futility. Economic offences are not immediately detected. If it is held that no action can be taken for an offence, if the same is detected when the notification in respect of which the said o....