2005 (3) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndia. They imported certain equipments which was cleared during the period 1988 to 1992 on various Bills of Entry by the Custom department without taking any bond or affecting provisional assessment. Director General of Health Services by letter dated 3-4-1992 informed the appellant that they fall under category (2) of the table to Notification No. 64/1988. On 19-4-2001 another letter was received from the same Director General of Health Services informing the appellant withdrawing the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate granted to them during the period 1988-92 for availing Customs duty exemption under Notification 64/1988 on the ground that Condition No. 2 of the table to the notification was not satisfied. This withdrawal was affected wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. Hence this appeal. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the issues it is found :- (a)        Notification No. 64/1988, dated 1-3-1988 has been repealed before the issue of demand as Remand Show cause notice in this case. Proceeding therefore initiated after the rescinding of the same cannot be upheld. (b)        The goods were allowed clearance, in this case and the letter dated 3-2-1994 was that the appellant falls under category (2) of the table of the notification. The appellant have submitted that they do not charge any fee from the patients treated as indoor patients. Since it is a Charitable Hospital, keeping a reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 to the notification were to be read in harmony altogether and not in an isolated fashion as being done by the department. When so read we find no violation to be proved with material to substantiate the same. (d)        A Rs. 10/- charge as registration charges are consultation fee for the first visit and Rs. 5/- for the subsequent visits and those who cannot afford the same. i.e. are not charged. The appellants contend those do not mask the charitable objective and have found to have complied with the condition of the notification. The mere fact that IPD and OPD records is not submitted by the appellant and scrutiny of the records fails to show the income of such patients treated free will not lead to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X