9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13-1-1988. The said CDECs were cancelled/withdrawn by the Director General of Health Services on 14-11-2000 on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions of para 2(b) of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner then made a representation to the Minister of Health and Welfare on 24-9-2003 for categorisation of the petitioner under para 1 of the table of the said notification. The said representation came to be rejected by the Director General of Health Services vide order dated 18-3-2004. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-11-2000 cancelling/withdrawing CDECs and the order dated 18-3-2004 declining to categorise the petitioner under para 1 of the table of the Notification No. 64/88-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Medilog 4000 Ambulatry ECG System Holter Monitor T-7308/10-12-89 14. Uvicon 930 pectro Photometer T-3414/11-1-94 15. A-Klinograph 4/4 (Part Shipment) Sr. No. 78901 T-612/3-12-90 A-Klinograph 4/4 Sr. No. 78901 T-614/3-12-90 16. Mingograph - 7 Sr. No. 2198, Model No. E-267 T-6691/16-10-93 17. Fibre Optics Endoscope Sr. No. 2198 T-1773/6-4-92 18. (A) Biopolar Coagulator Forceps T-1082/4-2-91 (B) Model No. ESU X-10 (Bovie) Sr. No. 568654 T-7649/23-12-91 (C) 400-CT (Bovie) Sr. No. 568687 T/2218/11-11-91 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to time, by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. M/s. Jaslok Hospital Research Centre, Mumbai was not certified under category 1 of the Notification 64/88 customs. The State Government while recommending the applications for CDEC under 64/88 Notification, did not categories the institution as a charitable hospital. The State Government recommended the institution under category 2 wherein it was certified that the hospital is providing free treatment to 40 percent of its OPD patients and that all indoor patients are treated free whose income is less than Rs. 500/- per month. The institution itself opted for categorising under category 2 of Notification 64/88. It was not thrust upon them. The institution to this effect above an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no point of time. the petitioner had any grievance for its non-categorisation under para 1 of the table of the said notification and its categorisation under para 2. 6.The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not applied for its categorisation under para 2 of table of Notification 64/88-Cus. and that it only applied for issuance of certificate as a charitable institution under Notification 64/88-Cus. does not deserve to be accepted because (a) the State Government recommended the petitioner's case only under para 2 of the table of the said notification; (b) the CDECs were issued to the petitioner under para 2 of the table of the notification and (c) the petitioner accepted the said CDECs without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. By virtue of Sections 8 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, the certificate granted to the petitioner as a charitable organisation under Notification No. 8/Cus., dated 6-1-78 cannot be said to be the certificate as contemplated under para 1 of the table of Notification 64/88-Cus. Sections 8 and 24 of the General Clauses Act have no application whatsoever. 9.Having considered all the aspects of the matter, we do not find any justifiable ground for invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction. 10.However, before we close, we may notice the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. He cited Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 590 (S.C.) = (1986) 161 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
