TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment given to IPD and OPD patients – It is categorically mentioned in notices that “in none of years, proper registers are maintained in support of statistics filed” – Settled position in law that it is for person who claiming benefit of exemption notification to lead evidence to show that he is entitled for same – As regard claim of appellant for Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to be extended, court of view that this particular issue has not been dealt with by lower adjudicating authority – Therefore appellants not entitled for exemption under notification, however, penalty is waived – Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to consider admissibility of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to appellant in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 9-11-89 2. 13842/6-3-90 Olympus GIF Type Q-20 QES Gastrointestinal Fibroscope 1,71,311/- Z 37024/17/90-MG dated 24-4-90 3. 3798/15-11-91 Theratron Phoenix Teletherapy Unit 59,27,814/- Z 37024/19/91-MG dated 9-10-91 Pursuant to the information that the appellant s hospital failed to fulfil the condition of the notification, the detail inquiry was conducted and statement of Dr. D.H. Singh, Chief Executive Officer Medical Physicist was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. After investigation, a show cause notice dated 10-9-2001 was issued. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. 2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had fulfilled the condition of providing free treatment to 10% IPD patients in the year 1998-1999 except percentage being less i.e. 9.96% in the year 1995-96 and 9.37% in 1996-97. It is his submission that during 1990-91 till 1993-94 the average 42.5 % outdoor patients were treated freely and during the same period average 19.48 % indoor patients were treated freely. He further submits that since the notification rescinded on 1-3-1994, the appellant was not under obligation to fulfil the said conditions of the notification thereafter. Ld. Counsel alternately submits that if at all exemption Notification No. 68/88-Cus. is not extended; they are otherwis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplied with : (d) to give the free treatment, on an average, to at least 40% of all their outdoor patients. (e) to give free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than ₹ 500/- per month and to keep for this purpose at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and, (f) to give treatment at reasonable charges, either on the basis of the income of all the patients concerned or otherwise, to patients other than those specified in clause (a) and (b) above. The appellant, though have claimed that they have fulfilled the conditions of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. as regard giving free treatment to OPD and IPD patients but on careful perusal of records and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligibility of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus. 5.1 In view of above discussions, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition laid down in the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Accordingly they are not entitled for the same. Accordingly we pass the following order : (a) The appellant is not entitled for the exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus., however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of ₹ 25,000/- is waived. (b) The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the admissibility of Notification No. 65/88-Cus. to the appellant in accordance with the law by passing a fresh order, preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
