2003 (10) TMI 494 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. for import of medical equipments.
2. Classification of a Diagnostic Centre as a hospital under the said notification.
3. Availability of facilities for indoor patients treatment.

Analysis:
The main issue in the appeal pertains to the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. for the import of medical equipments. The appellants, a Diagnostic Centre, imported medical equipments for scanning patients and claimed the customs duty exemption under the said notification. However, the adjudicating authority denied the benefit on the grounds that the appellants did not qualify as a 'hospital' as per the notification and lacked facilities for indoor patient treatment.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether a 'Diagnostic Centre' could be considered a 'hospital' under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. had already been decided in previous cases. Referring to the case of Kailash Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Centre P. Ltd. v. D.G. of Health Services, the Tribunal highlighted that a diagnostic centre does not fall under the definition of a hospital as per the notification. This view was also supported by a previous decision of the same Bench in the case of Amar Diagnostic Centre & Hospitals (P) Ltd. v. CC, Chennai. Consequently, the appellants' claim for the benefit of the notification based on this ground was dismissed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the appellants did not have facilities for treating indoor patients, as evidenced by the absence of beds during an inspection conducted by the competent authority. Additionally, the Director General of Health Services had withdrawn certain certifications from the appellants due to the lack of indoor bed facilities. The Tribunal found no evidence to dispute these findings, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were rightly denied the benefit of the notification on the second ground as well.

In light of the discussions and precedents cited, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed, and the appeal of the appellants was dismissed.