P.G. Chacko, Member (J)

1. The appellants are M/s. CDR Medical Industries Limited (formerly known as M/s. CDR Diagnostics Limited). It appears from the records that M/s. CDR Diagnostics Limited had filed two Bills of Entry No. 20426 and 20427, both dated 24.5.90, for clearance of certain medical equipments duty-free under Customs Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Likewise, another Company viz. M/s. CDR Health Care Limited had also filed Bill of Entry No. 33124 dated 28.8.90 for similar clearance of medical equipments imported by them. Show-cause notices were issued to both the importers demanding duty on the respective goods on the ground that the benefit of the above Notification was not liable to be extended to them for non-production of the requisite documents. The show-cause notices proposed to finalise assessments on merit rate of duty without extending the benefit of the Notification. In adjudication of these notices, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 9,82,795/- against M/s. CDR Healthcare Limited. M/s. CDR Medical Industries Limited (and not M/s. CDR Health Care Limited) preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The lower appellate authority, after sustaining the lower authoritys finding that Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) and Installation Certificate in respect of the medical equipments had not been obtained from the Director-General of Health Services (DGHS) and produced as required under Customs Notification No. 64/88, rejected the appeal filed by M/s. CDR Medical Industries Limited. Hence the present appeal of M/s. CDR Medical Industries Limited.

2. There is no representation for the appellants despite notice, nor is there any request for adjournment. The respondent is represented by ld. SDR who reiterates the findings recorded by the authorities below.

3. After a perusal of the grounds of these appeal, we note that one of the main grounds raised by the appellants is that a demand of duty raised on one party cannot be enforced against another. The original authority was adjudicating three show-cause notices, two issued to M/s. CDR Diagnostics Limited in respect of two Bills of entry and, the third issued to M/s. CDR Health Care Limited in respect of one Bill of Entry. Each of these notices demanded duty on the respective medical equipments from the respective noticees. However, in adjudication of the notices, the adjudicating authority demanded the entire amount of duty on the goods cleared under all the three Bills of Entry, from M/s. CDR Health Care Limited. Obviously, this could not have been done. One of the main grounds raised in the present appeal stands substantiated. It appears, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also overlooked the above aspect while sustaining the Assistant Commissioners order.

4. On the above facts, we have no option but to remand the case for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, the orders passed by both the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand with a direction to jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to pass fresh order in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice having regard to the findings recorded in this order.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)