2007 (2) TMI 2 - SC - Customs

Exemption Hospital equipments entitled for exemption under Notification No. 64/88Cus. and applied for the benefit of exemptionnotification para-2 of the table DGHS found appellant entitle for the exemption under para3.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under different categories of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Legality of rejection of exemption application by DGHS.
3. High Court's dismissal of the appellant's petitions.
4. Applicability of precedents regarding exemption benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under different categories of Notification No. 64/88-Cus:
The appellant, a charitable hospital, initially applied for and was granted exemption under category 2 of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, which pertains to hospital equipment imported by specified charitable hospitals. Later, the appellant sought exemption under category 3, arguing it was a non-profit organization operating in rural areas, thus qualifying for greater benefits. The Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS, rejected this application, stating that since the appellant initially applied under category 2, it could not subsequently apply under category 3.

2. Legality of rejection of exemption application by DGHS:
The Supreme Court found the rejection by DGHS to be illegal and contrary to law. The Court emphasized that an applicant is not barred from claiming more or greater benefits under a different category or notification if they are entitled to it. The Court cited precedents such as "Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals" and "H.C.L. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi," which established that an assessee could claim the benefit of the more beneficial exemption notification.

3. High Court's dismissal of the appellant's petitions:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's petitions, noting that the appellant initially claimed and was granted exemption under category 2, and that the appellant did not fulfill conditions under category 2, making its claim for conversion to category 3 untenable. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, stating that the High Court repeated the error of not considering the appellant's claim for exemption under category 3 on its merits.

4. Applicability of precedents regarding exemption benefits:
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to support its decision. In "Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay," the Court held that if no time is fixed for claiming benefits under an exemption notification, it could be done at any time. The Court also cited "Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax," which emphasized that each head of exemption should be treated as separate and distinct. The Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to claim exemption under category 3, and the authorities were duty-bound to consider it on merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the appellant's case for exemption under category 3 of the exemption notification in accordance with law and on its merits. The Court emphasized that the authorities must act reasonably and fairly, ensuring that the appellant is not deprived of benefits it is legally entitled to. The High Court's order and the decision of the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS, were set aside.