TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced technology with the citizens of India. The appellant-Society was established with the intention to construct and run hospitals, medical and diagnostic centers, etc. It is a charitable hospital and is run on 'no-profit' basis. It is located at village Ghanapur, about 40-50 kms away from the city of Hyderabad. It started its activities in the year 1993. It has specialized in treatment of heart and related ailments having the latest equipments and specialist doctors. 4.In the year 1992-93, the appellant-Society imported certain medical equipments for the use in its charitable hospital. According to the appellant, under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated March 1, 1988, exemptions were granted to hospital equipments imported by specified category of hospitals (charitable) subject to certification by Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The table in the notification classified hospitals in four categories. According to the appellant, it falls under Para No. 3 of the table of notification. 5.The appellant, however, along with several other hospitals, had applied for the benefit of exemption notification not under para 3 but para 2 of the table. The benefit of exemption w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant in the other category or other notification and there is no question of any estoppel or bar to such plea. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS to consider the application of the appellant on merits and rejection of application only on the ground that the appellant had earlier applied under category 2 and, therefore, it was not open to it to apply under category 3 and the application was not tenable was illegal and contrary to law. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it was only because of rejection of application on the ground of maintainability that it made a limited prayer before the High Court to direct the Deputy Director General. (Medical), DGHS to consider and decide the application of the appellant on merits. By not doing so, the error of law committed by the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS had been repeated by the High Court and hence both the orders are liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS may be asked to consider the matter of the appellant on merits as to whether it would be entitled to exemption under category 3. 9.The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification which may give him greater or larger relief. In Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (2002) 7 SCC 145 : JT 2002 (6) SC 547, the appellant was a manufacturer of bulk drugs. Exemption was granted to him under one item. He, thereafter, filed a revised classification list categorizing its bulk drugs under the other Head claiming more benefit. The claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the classification list and subsequently it could not be done. The appellant approached this Court. 13.Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order, this Court held that if no time is fixed for the purpose of getting benefit under the exemption notification, it could be claimed at any time. If the notification applies, the benefit thereunder must be extended to the appellant. The Court held that the authorities as well as the Tribunal were not right in holding that the appellant ought to have claimed the benefit of the notification at the time of filing of classification lists and not at a subsequent stage. The Court then stated; "...There can be no doubt that the authorities functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary, well settled law is that in case the applicant is entitled to benefit under two different Notifications or under two different Heads, he can claim more benefit and it is the duty of the authorities to grant such benefits if the applicant is otherwise entitled to such benefit. Therefore, non-consideration on the part of the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS to the prayer of the appellant in claiming exemption under category 3 of the notification is illegal and improper. The prayer ought to have been considered and decided on merits. Grant of exemption under category 2 of the notification or withdrawal of the said benefit cannot come in the way of the applicant in claiming exemption under category 3 if the conditions laid down thereunder have been fulfilled. The High Court also committed the same error and hence the order of the High Court also suffers from the same infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 17.Strong reliance was placed by the respondents on a decision of this Court in Mediwell Hospital Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 759 : JT 1997 (1) SC 270. In Mediwell Hospital, the Court was considering the very same notification 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
