2013 (2) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Condition of the exemption notification - Assessee import medical equipments duty-free under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 - Under the said notification, the hospital had continuing obligation to provide free treatment to at least 40% of their outdoor patients and also reserve at least 10% of the hospital beds for indoor patients from poor families with income less than Rs.500/- per month - whether the hospital was duly discharging their continuing liabilities under the notification Held that - Its clearly found that the hospital produced evidence of having complied with the conditions of the exemption notification. He categorically observed that the records submitted by the hospital bore testimony to the fact that they had planned and endeavoured to provide the prescribed outdoor and indoor treatment to those who had approached them. It appears from the orders that whatever records provided by the hospital were examined and the statements given by the hospital authorities were also considered and the evidentiary value of all these materials was duly assessed by the Commissioner. We would have appreciated, if the appellant had questioned the basis of such findings in these appeals. No such challenge is forthcoming. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Hospital's compliance with obligations under Notification No. 64/88-Cus regarding duty-free import of medical equipment.

Analysis:
The hospital, as the respondent, imported duty-free medical equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus but faced investigations regarding compliance with obligations. The department issued show-cause notices to recover foregone customs duty, confiscate equipment, and impose penalties. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the dispute, ordering confiscation, penalties, and duty payment. The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication, leading to the impugned orders dropping the duty demand, finding substantial compliance by the hospital.

The department contended that the hospital failed to meet obligations, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the objective of providing free treatment to low-income patients. The Addl. Commissioner argued that the Commissioner's decision lacked evidentiary support and misinterpreted relevant case law, urging allowance of the appeals. The respondent's counsel countered, highlighting certificates and case law supporting the hospital's compliance efforts.

The Tribunal found the department's grounds unconvincing, noting the lack of challenges to the Commissioner's factual findings. The Commissioner had determined the hospital's compliance based on evidence provided, including treatment records and statements. The hospital's efforts to provide free treatment were acknowledged, with no substantive challenge from the department. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision based on the hospital's demonstrated compliance with the notification's obligations.