Page 202 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

88 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(10) CCE, Kanpur v. Nag Poly Pouches Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 136
(Tri.-Del.);
(11) CCE, Kanpur v. Deepti Chemicals (P) Ltd. - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 423 (Tri.-
Del.);
(12) National Organic Chemicals Inds. Ltd. v. Collr. of C. Ex. Bombay-III -
1994 (70) E.L.T. 722 (T) - [Reaffirmed 1996 (84) E.L.T. A106 (S.C.).
We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the Cenvat credit
lying unutilised at the time of closure of their factory.
10. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant along with
consequential benefit as per law.
(Pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)
KESHLATA CANCER HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI
Order No. A/87090/2018-WZB, dated 14-8-2018 in Appeal No. C/502/2010
1
Medical Equipment - Electro Therapeutic Apparatus (Theratron Phoe-
nix Cobalt-60) - Exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. cannot be denied
for failure to fulfill post import conditions such as production of installation
certificate, free treatment to patients of income less than ` 500 per month, 10%
beds allotted to patients for treatment with the said equipment, etc. particular-
ly when all required documents produced at the time of import and clearance
of goods was allowed - Failure to fulfill post import conditions may lead to
confiscation and not disallowance of exemption. [para 7]
Confiscation - Import of medical equipment under Notification No.
64/88-Cus. - Failure to produce installation certificate not a ground to confis-
cate imported equipment when there is no allegation of non-installation
thereof - Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 10]
Medical Equipment - Electro Therapeutic Apparatus (Theratron Phoe-
nix Cobalt-60) imported under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. - Time-limit for
furnishing installation certificate - No time-limit prescribed in the Notification
for production of such certificate - However, time-limit for its production can
be specified by Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of import - Depart-
ment having failed to specify such period at the time of import and also in the
show cause notice issued after 8 years of import, asking for production of said
certificate after such a lapse of time not justified particularly when DGHS
withdrawn duty exemption certificate after three months of issuance of the
said show cause notice. [paras 11, 12]
Appeal allowed
________________________________________________________________________
1 Appeal against this order was dismissed by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A22 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  250