2003 (10) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Member (J) (Oral)]. - None is present on behalf of the appellants. No request from them for adjournment has been even received. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to adjourn the case. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. SDR. 2. The main issue involved in the present appeal which has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Orig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. or not already stands decided in the case of Kailash Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Centre P. Ltd. v. D.G. of Health Services, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 281 (A.P.) by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was an identical case and in that case it has been ruled that the 'diagnostic centre is not a hospital within t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s on the ground that they were not having any indoor bed facility so as to claim exemption from payment of customs duty under the said notification. We do not find any evidence on record to contradict these findings of the adjudicating authority recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, benefit of the notification in question, on the second ground, has been also rightly denied to the appellants. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X