TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CDEC, for short) of the Director-General of Health Services (DGHS, for short). 2. The above Notification had stipulated that hospitals certified by DGHS should provide medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment - (a) Free, on an average, to at least 40% of all their outdoor patients; (b) Free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than Rs. 500/- per month and keeping for this purpose at least 10% of all the hospitals beds reserved for such patients; and (c) At reasonable charges, either on the basis of the income of the patients concerned or otherwise, to patients other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b) above. 3. Later on, from the results of enquiries conducted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. 4. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel submitted that, though DGHS who had issued CDEC to the appellants in respect of the medical equipment and subsequently withdrew the certificate, such withdrawal was set aside by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 13924 of 2001. He submitted that, following the decision already rendered in Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India [2001 (133) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.)], the Hon ble Court remanded the matter to DGHS for its reconsideration. Learned Counsel contended that, where CDEC issued by DGHS was in force, it was not open to the Customs authorities to demand duty on the medical equipment. Learned Counsel further submitted that, when DGHS had already recognised the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved by the DGHS as essential for use in hospital specified in the Table annexed to the Notification. As per S. No. 1 of the said Table, the hospital must be certified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to be run or substantially aided by such charitable organisation as may be approved from time to time by the said Ministry. The conditions for the benefit of exemption were laid down under S. No. 2 of the said Table. It would follow that, by the mere reason of the hospital holding CDEC issued by DGHS, they cannot claim the benefit of exemption from demand of duty on any medical equipment imported by them. It was mandatory for the appellant to satisfy the conditions laid down under S.No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Learned Commissioner did not confiscate the goods as it was not available with the department. He, however, held it to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty on the appellants for rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The appellants have not succeeded in challenging the confiscation order, nor have they shown that they did not render the goods liable for confiscation. Hence a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is irresistible. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs is too much. We reduce the same to Rs. l lakh (Rupees One lakh only). In the result, the impugned order will stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
