9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decision of this Court in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., [1997 (1) SCC 759 which is to the following effect: "Thus a diagnostic centre run by a private individual purely on commercial basis may not be entitled to the exemption under the notification issued by the Central Government." Our attention, however, has been drawn to the said notification dated 1.3.1988 from a perusal whereof it appears that the Explanation appended to paragraph 4 thereof defines "Hospital" for the purpose of the said notification, to include any institution, centre, trust, society, association, laboratory, clinic and maternity home which renders medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment. To us the said definition appears to be a broad one which inter alia may include any clinic where diagnostic treatment is rendered. Moreover, Appellant although a Limited Company is administered by a trust. Its founders and promoters and their sister institutions are well known in the field of cancer research. Incidentally, we may notice that a part of paragraph 11 and paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment have been overruled by this Court in Faridabad CT. Scan Centre vs. D.G. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r diagnostic treatment." (emphasis supplied) 4. It would be pertinent at this stage to take note of the rules regarding the interpretation of the word 'includes' as has been used in the given notification above. Furthermore, we would take note of the well-established and settled principles of law with regard to the construction of a notification, and in particular an exemption notification as existing in the given reference. 5. With regard to the interpretation and construction of a notification granting exemption, it is settled that at the first instance, strict interpretation would apply, that is to say in the case of ascertaining its applicability. Thereafter, the Court may adopt the liberal approach within the particulars of the said notification. The case of Gammon (I) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2011) 12 SCC 499, reiterated the well-settled position of law that a provision providing for an exemption has to be construed strictly. The following cases would, further make the position of law clear on this point. 6. In the case of Commr. of Customs (Imports) v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789, it was held that: "... The principles as regards constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in interpretation clauses to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases in the statute: "these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include." Thus where "includes" has an extending force, it adds to the word or phrase a meaning which does not naturally belong to it. ..." 11. Again, in a three-judge Bench decision in the case of ESI Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works, (1991) 3 SCC 617, this Court observed that: "... The word "include" in the statutory definition is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction. The word 'include' is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. [See (i) Stroud's Judicial Diction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entre. We have also taken note of the principle that the word 'includes' in a definition or explanation clause would extend the meaning of the word as declared by the said clause, even if the same may go beyond its natural meaning. If that is so, in our opinion, we are of the considered view that the diagnostic centre is also eligible for claiming exemption under notification dated, 01.03.1988., provided it fulfills all the conditions envisaged under the said notification. 17. Coming to the facts of the case, the appellant was running a diagnostic centre. According to the appellant, the same was affiliated to the Bharat Cancer Hospital and Institute of Oncology. 18. The appellant in order to make use of the exemption notification dated, 01.03.1988, had approached the DGHS for grant of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate as provided under the notification. On the request so made by the appellant, the DGHS had granted the exemption certificate. The appellant making use of that exemption certificate had imported machinery and had claimed exemption from payment of customs duty and the same was granted to the appellant. 19. On a subsequent date, after notification No.98/94-Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
