9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 568 - HC - CustomsImport of medical instruments - claiming exemption as charitable hospital - Is SGRH a charitable hospital? - Held that - At this point in time several years after the import of the equipments and several years after the Notification No. 64 of 1988 has ceased to exist to brush aside the claim of the Petitioner that it should be treated as a charitable hospital would not be justified. Consequently this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner to be treated as a charitable hospital for the purposes of Notification No. 64 of 1988 ought to be accepted by the Respondents. Does the Petitioner satisfy the requirement of Para (2) of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988 - Held that - As per the letter of DGHS Indoor treatment facilities are provided free of cost to all families with income of less than Rs. 500/- per month. For this purpose 49 beds reserved out of total 498 beds which is not less than 10% of total bed strength of the hospital/institution. - he above letter was placed on record before this Court by the DGHS itself It is not clear whether there was any correspondence between the Delhi Administration and the DGHS in that behalf The DGHS obviously accepted the certification by the DHS. Considering that this is a letter of 21st July 1992 and relates to the figures of 1987 to 1989 there is no reason why the DGHS should disbelieve it. - This Court is satisfied upon an examination of the said affidavit of the trustees that there was substantial compliance with the spirit and objective of Notification No. 64 of 1988 by SGRH during the period that the said Notification was in force. Therefore the Petitioner should be held to have satisfied the requirements of para 2 of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988. - Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. Mere suspension of license in the facts of the present case would be wholly unjustified. Ordinarily matters of discipline lie in the realm of the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of Customs who is best placed to understand the importance of the CHA in a customs area and the trust and confidence reposed on him by the customs department. - he punishment imposed on the respondent by the Commissioner of Customs of revocation of their license when viewed in the light of the grave and serious acts of misconduct held established is justified. The punishment imposed is not one which can be said to shock the conscience of courts/Tribunals. The order passed by the CESTAT on mere surmises and conjectures and their interference with the punishment imposed by the Commissioner on grounds of misplaced sympathy is in excess of their jurisdiction and gives rise to a substantial question of law necessitating interference by this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The order of CESTAT is therefore set aside and the order of the Commissioner revoking the license of the respondent CHA is affirmed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. However in the circumstances without costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (SGRH) qualifies as a charitable hospital under Notification No. 64 of 1988. 2. Whether the SGRH fulfilled the post-import obligations under Para (2) of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988. 3. Whether the withdrawal of the Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (SGRH) qualifies as a charitable hospital under Notification No. 64 of 1988: Notification No. 64 of 1988 grants customs duty exemption to charitable hospitals. The Petitioner argued that SGRH is a charitable hospital, supported by certificates from the Delhi Administration dated 30th August 1977 and 23rd March 1983, which certified SGRH as a charitable institution. The court held that these certifications should be accepted, despite the lack of certification from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW), as the criteria for certification by the Delhi Administration and MHFW are not shown to be different. The court also noted that the application for obtaining the CDECs stated that the hospital is run by a charitable trust and recognized as such by the Delhi Administration. The court found that the claim of SGRH being a charitable hospital is sustainable and should be accepted by the Respondents. 2. Whether the SGRH fulfilled the post-import obligations under Para (2) of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988: The court examined whether SGRH fulfilled the post-import obligations during the time Notification No. 64 of 1988 was in force (1st March 1988 to 1st April 1994). The DGHS's inspection in January 2001 and subsequent data pertained to periods after 1995, making it difficult to verify compliance for the relevant period. The court emphasized that the figures provided by SGRH in its reply dated 31st August 2000 and letter dated 25th May 2001 should be considered. A letter dated 21st July 1992 from the Delhi Administration to the DHS certified that SGRH provided free OPD to all patients and reserved 49 beds for free indoor treatment for families with income less than Rs. 500 per month. The court found no reason for the DGHS to disbelieve this certification. The court concluded that SGRH substantially complied with the spirit and objective of Notification No. 64 of 1988 during the relevant period, fulfilling the requirements of Para (2) of the Table appended to the notification. 3. Whether the withdrawal of the Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) was justified: The DGHS withdrew the CDECs issued to SGRH based on an inspection report and the claim that SGRH did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 64 of 1988. The court found that the DGHS did not adequately consider the materials and representations provided by SGRH, including the detailed reply dated 26th March 2008 and affidavits filed by the trustees. The court noted that the DGHS's decision was influenced by data and observations from periods after the notification had ceased to be operative, which was not relevant for assessing compliance during the period when the notification was in force. Conclusion: The court set aside the impugned order dated 28th August 2008 by the DGHS, which reiterated the earlier decision dated 16th March 2001 withdrawing the CDECs issued to SGRH. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
