TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ammography system valued at Rs. 14,44,734/- on 9-1-1992 and 3-1-1992, through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. They availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-1988. The main condition in the said Notification is that the appellants should provide free treatment to 40% of the out patients and free treatment to all the inpatients whose monthly income is less than Rs. 500/- per month. The Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi (DGHS), New Delhi rejected the request for issue of customs duty exemption certificate made by the appellants, in their letter dated 16-2-97, on the ground that the appellant is only a diagnostic centre not having indoor patient treatment facility. It has further been stated that diagn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on the date of issue of Show Cause Notice the appellants were having a valid C.D.E. Certificate. (ii) The demand is also barred by limitation of time. 4. The learned JDR strongly urged that once it is established that the appellants, are diagnostic unit and not a hospital then they are not at all entitled to the benefit of Notification in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.C. Health Services [1997 (95) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] wherein it is held that the benefit of the exemption notification cannot be ac corded to Diagnostic Center. He said that there is no question of time bar as duty is demanded for violation of post import condition of Notification under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n equipment which is different from the impugned goods. However the reason for denying the exemption given in the said letter is that the appellant is not a hospital but a Diagnostic Center and the diagnostic center without in-patient facility is not entitled for the benefit of the notification. Hence the defence of the appellants is very weak. Once the competent authority holds that the appellant is a Diagnostic Center that facts itself is sufficient to deny the exemption Notification. We also find that the C.D.E. Certificate issued on 9-10-92 in respect of the impugned goods has been withdrawn on 26-10-99. As regards time bar, it is well settled that when there is violation of post import condition of notification, there is no time limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
