9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty-free clearance eligibility under Notification 64/88 for imported hospital equipment. 2. Compliance with conditions for availing exemption. 3. Requirement of installation certificate for hospital equipment. 4. Interpretation of the term "hospital" under the notification. 5. Scope of proceedings limited to production of installation certificate. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a dental college and hospital, imported dental chairs and units in 1991 seeking duty-free clearance under Notification 64/88, which exempts hospital equipment meeting specified conditions. The exemption requires certification of free treatment for outdoor patients and reserved beds for indoor patients of lower income families. 2. The notice issued in 1998 alleged non-compliance with conditions, including free treatment percentages and lack of installation certificate. The appellant argued that as a dental hospital, the indoor treatment condition didn't apply due to the nature of services provided. The Commissioner's order denied benefit under the notification but didn't order confiscation or penalty. 3. The Commissioner's order didn't address whether the installation certificate requirement applied to all imported equipment or only for hospitals in the process of establishment. The appellant's contention on this aspect wasn't fully considered, prompting the need for the Commissioner's opinion on this matter. 4. The definition of "hospital" under the notification includes institutions providing medical services that may not require indoor facilities. Precedents extended the notification's benefits to diagnostic centers, supporting the appellant's claim as a dental hospital with indoor treatment facilities. 5. The appellant's alternative plea to produce the installation certificate pending recommendation from the Health Department was noted. The Commissioner's order focused on the non-production of the certificate, but the scope of proceedings wasn't limited to this aspect. The matter was remanded for further consideration based on evidence presented by the appellant. 6. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order for the Commissioner to re-adjudicate according to law and considering the evidence provided by the appellant. Miscellaneous and stay applications were deemed unnecessary following the decision.
|
