TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . S/Shri E.P. Bharucha, Sr. Advocate, with Cyrus Bharucha, Sachin Chandrana and Parira Talsaria, Instructed by M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal Company, for the Petitioner. S/Shri R.V. Desai, Sr. Advocate, with Mrs. S.V. Bharucha and R.C. Master, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: J.P. Devadhar, J. (Oral)]. - This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 2nd February, 2001, passed by the Deputy Director General (Medical), whereby the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) issued to the petitioners in the year 1992-93 under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1st March, 1988, is sought to be cancelled. 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that the petitioners are a Charitable Trust registered under the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss than Rs. 500/- p.m. whenever made available for this purpose not less than 10% if beds are reserved. 4. Certified that the charges levied for other indoor patients are reasonable either on the basis of the income of patients/ guardians or otherwise. 5. Certified that the Medical, Surgical and Diagnostic Equipment apparatus and appliances to be imported will be used in the institution itself only and will not be removed therefrom for private use and will not be sold or otherwise disposed off without prior permission of the Government." 5. Based on the above recommendations, the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, issued several CDEC's to the petitioners for imports of various hospital equipments duty free. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed. 7. Mr. Bharucha learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the said order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the communication dated 28th March, 2000, calling upon the petitioners to furnish certain particulars, cannot be construed as a show cause notice. After the petitioners furnished requisite particulars, if the respondents wanted to cancel the CDEC, then a show cause notice ought to have been issued and without giving a personal hearing the impugned order ought not to have been passed. 8. Mr. Bharucha further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that it has come to the notice of the authorities that the petitioners have not fulfilled the post-importation conditions and while calling for the particulars within the stipulated period, it was specifically stated that if the petitioners failed to furnish the relevant particulars, it would be considered that the petitioners are not interested in continuing with the CDEC granted to them earlier. Thus, the petitioners were put to notice that if the post-importation conditions are not fulfilled then the CDEC is liable to be cancelled. On the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioners, it is evident that post-importation conditions are not fulfilled and hence cancellation of CDEC cannot be faulted. In these circumstances, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Bench of this Court held as follows:- "17. We expect the authority, like Res. No. 1, when it wants to initiate an action against defaulter, or against those, who, violate terms and conditions of the Notification to issue proper and specific show cause notice and afford reasonable opportunity to defend the case. The recitals of the show cause notice must indicate the purpose, for which, information is sought for, as well as the action proposed to be taken, if the information found to be not satisfactory. In the instant case, as we have already observed hereinabove that the communication dated 24-2-2000 cannot be treated as show cause notice issued by the authority to the petitioner calling information from him for taking action of cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clearances of the imported goods on the basis of CDEC's were in accordance with law, then for violation of the post importation conditions set out in the Notification No. 64 of 1988 whether the CDEC's could be cancelled is the question which needs consideration. In other words, whether the CDEC's could be cancelled for the alleged violation of post-importation conditions, is the question to be considered in the present case. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the above questions, because those questions have not been considered in the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2nd Febru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
