TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respectively and acknowledged by the second respondent on 17-12-1998. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was running a Hospital at Puducherry. The petitioner was seeking exemption in terms of the Notification No. 64/88/Customs dated 1-3-1988, which exempts customs duty in respect of import of equipments satisfying the requirements under the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. The petitioner imported ultra Sound Scanner, a blood gas analyser, a computerised treadmill and multi channel recorder. These were brought in to the customs with Bill of Entries as listed out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit. When the petitioner sought for clearance of the said goods in terms of the Notification No. 64/88, as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Scheme under Section 88 of the Finance Act, (No. 2/1988), by which an assessee was given opportunity to make a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 89 in respect of the tax arrears and where such a declaration is made, the tax payable by the declarant shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 88. 8. Therefore, the petitioner in order to avail the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme gave a declaration in respect of the Demand Notice on 17-12-1998. 9. Thereafter, the Section 90 of the Finance Act provides the time and manner of payment of tax arrears. In terms of Section 90, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the declaration under Section 88, the designated autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to pay the said amount. 13. Notice was ordered in the writ Petition. On receipt of the notice, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit dated 10-9-1999 was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Legal Section). In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 2B certificate was sent by RPAD to the petitioner's address and the said letter came back undelivered on 3-3-1999 with the postal endorsement on the cover stating that it was not claimed. Therefore, they have taken a stand that since the petitioner has not availed the Samadhan Scheme, they are not eligible for any benefit and if at all any mischief is played by the Postal Department, then the Customs Department is not responsible for the same. 14.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Therefore, in the light of the above whether the petitioner is eligible for any relief? is the only question in the present case. The respondents are not able to show the original cover and the entry made on the reverse side of the cover. The petitioner also submitted that when any Scheme is beneficial to them, there was no reason as to why they would not have received the tapal and availed the benefit. 17. Therefore, in the light of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that when a Scheme grants benefit to an assessee and provides modality for availing such a benefit and the petitioner having submitted the due declaration, the respondents have also granted a Certificate and, only because of the dislocation caused by t....