9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1996 (12) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the duty liability would arise. We have perused the impugned order-in-appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the appellants are a charitable hospital run by a charitable trust and substantially run and funded by charitable organisation in the name of Moradabad Charitable Trust Health Research Centre as recognised by the DGHS to the Government of India and that this fact is clearly admitted in the Show Cause Notice as well as in the impugned order. It is nowhere admitted therein that M/s Moradabad Charitable Trust & Health Research Centre has been so certified/approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Thus, the said observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led of the benefit of Notification No.64/88-Cus. dated 1.3.88 on the medical equipment imported without payment of duty on the basis of customs duty exemption certificate issued by DGHS. This notification required the respondents to fulfil certain post-importation conditions such as, to use the medical equipment for free treatment on an average to at least 40% of their outdoor patients, free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than ₹ 500/- P.M. and keeping for this purpose at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients. The said exemption certificate was withdrawn by DGHS vide letter dated 30.8.2000 for non-fulfilment of the conditions of grant thereof. As the benefit of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said Notification. Essentially the Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the present case the hospitals fell under the scope of paragraph 1. 3. Revenue has contended that CDEC was issued vide DGHS for the category of hospital covered under paragraph 2 of the Table in the said notification and that there is no evidence or substance on the basis of which the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the exemption given to the respondents by DGHS was treating them under the category of hospital covered under paragraph 1 of the Table. 4. The ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that they are charitable institution and therefore fall in the category of hospital covered paragraph 1 of the Table in the Notification No. 64/88-Cus and were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oid of any sustainable basis. Quite to the contrary, the letter of DGHS dated 30.8.2000 in terms of which the CDEC issued to the appellants was withdrawn as cancelled specifically noted that the appellants were issued CDEC as a hospital falling under para 2 of the Table attached to notification No. 64/88-Cus and that such hospital were required to fulfil the conditions contained in paras 2 (a), (b) (c) of the Table in the said notification. Thus, it is evident that DGHS had given the respondents CDEC treating their hospital as falling under paragraph 2 of the said Table and not under the paragraph 1 thereof. In the case of Bharat Diagnostic Centre Vs. CC - 2014 (307) ELT 632 (SC), it was held by Supreme Court as under : 22. In the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
