TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Authority has not passed any order before whom the actual factual status was placed, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be sent back to these Authorities to re-decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid. Petition allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition No.19335 of 2012 (GM-CUS) - - - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. Mr. Kiran S. Javali, Advocate for Mr. Chandrashekara. K, Advocate Mr. C. Shashikantha, C.G.C. for Respodnents-1, 2, 4 5. This Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner- P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital in this Court on 16.6.2012 with the following prayers. a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Directions quashing or setting aside the order No. Z 37021 11 90-MG dated 21.8.2000 (Annexure-L) to this Writ Petition. b) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other writ, order, or direction, prohibiting the Respondent No.1, 4 and 5 from taking any further action with respect to the Order No.Z 37021 11 90-MG dated 21.8.2000 (Annexure-L) to this Writ Petition. c) Iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Centre, Bangalore. 6. In view of the facts stated above, it is concluded that M/s. P.D.Hinduja Sindhi Hospital, Bangalore failed to substantiate its fulfillment of post import conditions undertaken at the time of importation and thus not eligible to retain CDECs under the said notification. Therefore, CDEC issued to you vide letter No.Z37021/14/90-MG dated 16.5.90 as stated under para (1) above is hereby withdrawn as cancelled . Pending request for CDECs for (1) Spare parts of film Processing Machine and (ii) Blood Gas Analyser made vide your letter no.COS/EX/88 dated 17.6.88 and 30.6.88 is also hereby rejected on the reasons stated above. 7. This issues with the approval of DGHS and Secy (H), Ministry of Health Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. Mr. Kiran S. Javali, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the medical equipments in question like, Spares for Blood Gas Analyser, Spares for Combilabor Film Processing Machine, RM 300 Multichannel Monitor, etc. were imported by the petitioner-Hospital in the year 198 9 claiming exemption from customs duty under the Notification No.64/88-Cus. dated 01.03.1988 and they were im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een housed. The imported equipment were with this hospital only for the duration of the project, and hence were not owned by the hospital at any stage.One of the members of our Board of Management has personally met Mr. T. Jayaraman, Additional Collector of Customs, Bangalore and explained the matter in detail to him. As the imported equipments were held by the Hospital during the duration of Research project permitted by the Department of Science and Technology and not owned by us, we request you to drop the proceedings. Kindly note that at no time were we the owners of the equipment. These were funded by the Government of India to perform Cardiac surgeries and to provide cardiac treatment to the poor people in our area, as part of the project. On termination of the project, the entire equipment was returned to the owners, namely the Government of India in 1991. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Customs Authority has never refuted these averments by this petitioner-Institution before it in its reply Annexure-C dated 29.1.1999 and has never withdrawn the exemption of customs duty by passing any appropriate order in the matter, however, the Deputy Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it did avail customs duty exemption under the Notification No.64/88-Cus. dated 01.03.1988 by importing these medical equipments, subject to certain conditions, viz., serving 40% of poor sections of the Society free of cost, but the two facts stand out, which have not been considered by the respondents are (i) that the petitioner-Institution is a Charitable Hospital and is engaged in providing free medical service to poor sections of the Society and (ii) that the equipments in question were not purchased by it to be owned by itself for an endless period, but they were imported out of the funds provided by the Central Government itself for their research project for a particular period and these equipments were returned back to the Government of India or to another Institution of Government of India, viz., Bangalore Heart Hospital and Research Centre, Bangalore. 10. These facts have not at all been properly appreciated by the respondent Authority while passing the impugned order on 21.8.2000. The said Authority has neither considered the fact that the petitioner - Institution is a Charitable Hospital nor it has considered the fact that the equipments in question were for a limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
