9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignment is Rs. 2,75,11,988/- and the duty foregone works out to Rs. 3,78,66,864/- (since reduced to Rs. 1,10,04,795/- in the impugned order of the Commissioner). The notification in question has laid down certain conditions to be satisfied by the importer "hospital" before claiming the same. One such condition as laid down under the Table at para 2 reads as under:- "2. All such hospitals which may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in each case, to be run for providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment not only without any distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language but also, - (a) free, on an average, to at least 40 per cent of all their outdoor patients an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given them clean chit upto 1999 and hence the appellants cannot to said to have violated any of the conditions under the said notification now. 3.2 The learned Counsel would also rely upon a judgment in Hindustan Lever Limited and another v. Union of India and others reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 907 (Bombay) passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. This judgment which examined the Government promise by way of allowing duty free import required for the manufacture of export goods, held that it was a settled principle of equity and law that where public authorities make express and equivalent promise or representation, they are bound to carry out their representation/promise. It was argued that once the Government give a promise to wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treatment and that at least 40% or may be above". (iii) Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Provisions of Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. The proposition was that in the subject case, Section 28 has no application because the exemption notification contemplates continual obligation on the part of the appellants. 4.1 It was also submitted that in the case of Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 268, this Tribunal had an occasion to hold that the failure to fulfill the criteria of giving f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, at least 40 per cent of all outdoor patients should be provided free treatment in order to be eligible for the said exemption. The Apex Court in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has also laid down similar guidelines. According to these guidelines, those who have availed the said notification should ensure that the treatment of 40 per cent of the patient free of cost would continuously be fulfilled. It has further contemplated in the event of default, there should be coercive official action to perform this obligation undertaken by all such persons. In no unclear terms, the Court has directed that adherence to this condition should strictly be enforced by all concerned including the Police personnels when complaints o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e foregoing paragraphs. It is clear that violation of any one of the condition would disentitle the appellant to the benefit of exemption under the said notification. 6. In view of the above reasoning, 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. 7. In this context we also find that the exemption offered under notification does not stand withdrawn; only the appellant has been made ineligible due to non-fulfillment of the condition as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. 8. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
