2007 (7) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Hospital equipment - Exemption - Non fulfilment of conditions - whether the appellant had provided medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment free on an average, to at least 40 per cent of all their outdoor patients? - Held that - we do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned order on any of the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant. Even the contention of promise prayed before us has no merit because there cannot be any such equity estoppel against the provisions of a statutory notification. The exemption offered under notification does not stand withdrawn; only the appellant has been made ineligible due to non-fulfillment of the condition - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant provided medical, surgical, or diagnostic treatment free to at least 40% of all outdoor patients as required under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported hospital equipment claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The issue is whether the appellant fulfilled the condition of providing free treatment to 40% of outdoor patients.

2. The appellant argued that the word "and" in the notification should be read as "or" based on a previous Tribunal's order. They also claimed compliance based on examinations by customs and State Government officials until 1999.

3. The appellant cited a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing that public authorities must fulfill their promises, arguing that the government cannot retract promises made regarding duty-free imports.

4. The department's representative referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the obligation to provide free treatment to a certain percentage of patients for duty exemption eligibility. Data showed the appellant failed to meet the 40% free treatment requirement in multiple years.

5. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the 40% free treatment condition for most years. Supreme Court guidelines stressed the importance of fulfilling this obligation, with coercive action for non-compliance.

6. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments for modifying the notification or relying on past clean chits, emphasizing strict compliance with the exemption conditions.

7. The Tribunal concluded that any violation of the exemption conditions would disqualify the appellant from the benefit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

8. The Tribunal clarified that the exemption was not withdrawn but the appellant became ineligible due to non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.