2003 (3) TMI 369 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-1988 for customs duty exemption eligibility.
- Requirement of producing specific certificates for exemption.
- Conditions for availing benefits under the notification regarding free treatment provision.

Interpretation of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. for Customs Duty Exemption Eligibility:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the interpretation of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, to ascertain the availability of benefits to the Gujarat Research & Medical Institute. The Appellants imported a Pentax Duodeno Fiberscope and claimed exemption under this notification.

Requirement of Producing Specific Certificates for Exemption:
The Appellants contended that they had fulfilled the conditions of the notification, including providing a 'Not manufactured in India' certificate, which was accepted by the Customs department despite the original being misplaced during transit. They also argued that the installation certificate requirement was not applicable to their established hospital. Additionally, they presented certificates from the Gujarat Health Directorate confirming compliance with the conditions of providing free treatment to outdoor and indoor patients as per the notification.

Conditions for Availing Benefits under the Notification Regarding Free Treatment Provision:
The Respondent, however, argued that the Appellants failed to meet the obligation of providing free treatment to a specific percentage of outdoor and indoor patients as mandated by the notification. They cited legal precedents emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the obligation of providing free treatment to patients below a certain income threshold. The Respondent also highlighted the requirement to publish patient treatment details in local newspapers monthly, which the Appellants allegedly did not comply with.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both parties and observed that the Appellants had indeed met the conditions specified in the notification. The Appellants provided evidence of treating over 40% of outdoor patients for free and reserving 10% of hospital beds for indoor patients, as confirmed by State Medical Services certificates. The Tribunal clarified that the percentage of indoor patients treated for free being less than 10% did not affect eligibility under the notification, as the key condition was to reserve the specified percentage of beds for such patients. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the Gujarat Research & Medical Institute.