9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us in view of the order of reference made by two learned Judges of this Court dated 17.01.2008. The Referral order reads as under : One of the premises on the basis whereof the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore proceeded to fasten the liability upon the appellant herein is that the diagnostic centers would not be entitled to the benefit of any exemption for payment of customs duty under Notification No.64/88 dated 1.3.1988, which was in force for the period 1.3.1988 to 1.3.1994. It appears that the aforementioned findings are based on a stray observation made in paragraph 10 of a Division Bench 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted by specified category of hospitals (charitable) subject to certification from the Directorate General of Health Services (for short, the DGHS ) to the Government of India. We are not going into the conditions that are prescribed for seeking exemption under the aforesaid notification. For the purpose of answering the reference, it is suffice to extract only the explanation appended to the notification dated 01.03.1988. The explanation reads as under : Explanation - For the purposes of this notification, the expression Hospital includes any Institution, Centre, Trust, Society, Association, Laboratory, clinic and Maternity Home which renders medical, surgical or 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 gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also those things which the interpretation or explanation clause declares that they shall include. This principle has been enumerated in several decisions of this Court. 10. In the case of South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 4 SCC 601, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that: ... It is true that includes is generally used as a word of extension, but the meaning of a word or phrase is extended when it is said to include things that would not properly fall within its ordinary connotation. We may refer to the often quoted observation of Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC 99, 105- 106] that when the word include is used 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court was trying to observe that if an individual is running a diagnostic centre purely on a commercial basis, that is without providing treatment free of cost to at least 40 percent of all their outdoor patients and free to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than ₹ 500/- per month, the same would not be entitled for exemption under the notification. Therefore, we cannot take exception to the observations made in Mediwell's case (supra). 16. However, to make things clear, we observe that the notification has an explanation which we have already extracted. It explains the meaning of the expression Hospital to include an institution, a centre, a trust etc., including a diagnostic centre. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
