9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of displaying in an exhibition to be held at New Delhi under Notification No. 3/89-Cus., dated 9-1-1989 which permits temporary importation and export of the goods within the time limit allocated. The impugned medical equipment was subsequently purchased by the appellant. The appellant cleared the equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 on the strength of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) dated 3-4-1992 issued by DGHS, New Delhi. The equipment was installed at the premises of the appellant. The DGHS in their letter dated 12-12-1997 cancelled the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued to the appellant. The main reason for cancellation is that the DGHS came to the conclusion that the appellant are only a diagnostic centre not having indoor patient treatment facility and therefore, they do not fulfil the condition for availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. In view of the above development, the officers of Customs Division-I Mysore detained the impugned medical equipment. It was noticed that the detained goods were totally different from the imported scanner, which was imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 200, dated 19-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red for the appellant and Shri. K.S. Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate urged the following points. (i) The DGHS cancelled the CDEC without granting an opportunity to the appellant to explain their case and thus violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Commissioner has not given any finding on this contention of the appellants. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v. Union of India - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.). (ii) The learned Commissioner held that the appellants are not a hospital but only a diagnostic centre. It is now a settled law that for the purpose of extending the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., the word hospital includes a diagnostic centre. (iii) In the case of Gujarat Imaging Research Institute v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 97 (T), it has been held that the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. is available to diagnostic centre also. This decision is binding and the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the notification subject to satisfying the conditions of the Notification. (iv) One of the grounds for denying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions of the Notification. As such it would be very difficult to fault with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority. However, the learned Advocate brought to our notice that Notification No. 64/88-Cus. was rescinded on 1-3-1994. But the CDEC Certificate was cancelled only on 12-12-1997 i.e. long after the repeal of the Notification. Further, it was brought to our notice the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Apollo Hospitals (supra) wherein the effect of repeal of Notification No. 64/89-Cus. has been elaborately dealt with in paras 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49 50. The CDEC Certificate was valid at the time of import of the medical equipment, as the same was not obtained fraudulently. Moreover, the appellants have approached the Karnataka High Court by way of writ petition challenging the cancellation of the CDEC. That issue has not been decided yet. Be that has it may, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal has held this means that as a result of a statute, the statute as repealed ceases to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law which has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d along with several other notifications came into force on 1-3-1994. Hence from 1-3-1994 the Notification No. 64/88 cannot be said to be in existence or in force in the eyes of law. 39. Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act makes it clear that in respect of the matter if anything is done, under the repealed statute, the same cannot be invalidated after its repeal; but it will be rendered operative if not right was accrued or had accrued and no liability had been incurred prior to repeal. What is unaffected by the repeal of statute is a right acquired or accured under it. 40. Similarly sub-section (c) of Section 6 preserves rights and privileges acquired and accrued on the one side and the corresponding obligation and liability incurred on the other side so that if no right had accrued under the repeal statute, there is no question of any liability being preserved. 41. If this is taken into consideration along with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases, it is clear that the benefits acquired or accrued by the petitioners cannot be taken away such as the certificate issued already cannot be cancelled. 42. However, the question remains for considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
