Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2011 (4) TMI HC This
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.
|