Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (7) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t has been made ineligible due to non-fulfillment of the condition - appeal dismissed. - C/57/2005 - 359/2007-Cus.(PB) - Dated:- 4-7-2007 - Justice R.K. Abichandani, Dr. T.V. Sairam, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.V. Sairam, Member (T)]. The appellant Noida Medicare Centre Limited, Noida had imported hospital equipment claiming exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-88 without payment of duty. Based on the customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), the value of the consignment is Rs. 2,75,11,988/- and the duty foregone works out to Rs. 3,78,66,864/- (since reduc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a view that diagnostic center need not have the beds but they are entitled for Notification No. 64/88, condition under para 2 of the said notification is not operational . According to him the word and used therein should be read as or and the situation calls out for such an amendment/interpretation. 3.1 Further the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in their case both customs as well as Special Secretary of the State Government had examined the issue after conducting necessary investigation and examining the records maintained by them and both of them had given them clean chit upto 1999 and hence the appellants cannot to said to have violated any of the conditions under the said notification now. 3.2 The learned Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cive official action to perform their obligation undertaken by all such persons. This condition becomes apart of the exemption order application and strictly be enforced by all concerned including the Police personals when complaints of non-compliance were made by the indigent persons, on denial of such treatment in the concerned hospital or diagnostic centers, as the case may be . (ii) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). (at least 40% of all outdoor patients should be provided free treatment and that at least 40% or may be above . (iii) Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Provis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he three conditions stipulated under the exemption notification as they had not given free treatment to at least 40 per cent of outdoor patients. We find that the appellant itself has admitted in para 10 of its reply that in six out of nine years during the relevant period of 1991-1999 free treatments given comes to less than 40 per cent. In this context, the guidelines of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre (supra) discussed above are of immense relevance. According to this judgment, at least 40 per cent of all outdoor patients should be provided free treatment in order to be eligible for the said exemption. The Apex Court in Mediwell Hospital Health Care Pvt. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n makes it clear that all the terms and conditions thereunder were to be complied with in order to make an importer eligible for duty free concession. The show cause notice was issued only in that case for non-compliance of the condition of free treatment to 40 per cent of total outdoor patients and the reply was also confined to that allegation. We, therefore, do not find any necessity to go into the question of compliance or non-compliance of the remaining conditions under para 2 overlooking the issue raised before us, as stands answered in the foregoing paragraphs. It is clear that violation of any one of the condition would disentitle the appellant to the benefit of exemption under the said notification. 6. In view of the above reason .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates