TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-. The import being duty free in terms of Notification No. 279/83-Cus dated 30.09.1983, the appellant was exempted from payment of duty and as such no customs duty was paid on the said import. In June, 1994 the instrument was sold to one Shri Ram Singh Hospital and Heart Institute. The case of the appellant is that the CT Scanner after continuous use for more than seven years, had become unfit for use and, therefore, had to be sold off. It is stated that before selling it the appellant had consulted M/s Blue Star Ltd. who certified that life of the machine had expired. On 13.02.1995, show cause notice was issued to the appellant as well as the said Shri Ram Singh Hospital alleging that the CT Scanner had been sold without approval of the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he clearance of the goods. The demand for duty amounting to Rs. Rs. 60,91,872/- is, therefore, not enforceable under Sec. 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962." 3. Learned Commissioner, however, held that the sale of machine to Shri Ram Singh Hospital was in contravention of the condition of notification and, therefore, it was liable to be confiscated. While ordering confiscation, he gave option to Shri Ram Singh Hospital to pay redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the appellant. It is not in dispute that neither side preferred any appeal etc. before any higher forum and the order dated 30.07.1996 came to attain finality. 4. On 20.05.1997 a fresh show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing duty am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us under which import was made duty free. He also submitted that fresh show cause notice was issued in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.), in which it was held that where the condition of import/notification casts continuing obligation on the party, limitation of five years cannot be applied to deprive the exchequer of the revenue arising from the violation of the condition of notification. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and we are of the view that fresh show cause notice was not maintainable and no duty liability could be saddled on the appellant. We are of the view that the competent authority having adju....