9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions contained in Exhibit P1 concerning free medical treatment to inpatients and outpatients etc. are continuing obligations of the importer and if it is found that those conditions are not complied with, exemption already granted can be withdrawn. Apparently, pursuant to the said decision, the Director General of Health Services issued Exhibit P3 communication to the petitioner, calling upon it to furnish certain details mentioned therein. The petitioner forwarded Exhibit P4 reply, through the Kerala Government. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with a copy of Exhibit P5 letter, addressed by the Kerala Government to the Director General of Health Services, stating that the State Government is not in a position to certify or r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Court, the petitioner was heard and Exhibit P10 order has been passed, ordering that it is not eligible for exemption under Exhibit P1 notification. In other words, Exhibit P2 has been withdrawn. This writ petition is filed, challenging Exhibit P10. 2. The Director General, in Exhibit P10, has found that the documents produced by the Hospital, to support its claim that it is providing free treatment to 40% of the outpatients and 10% of the inpatients, were tampered documents. The petitioner submits, the said finding has been rendered without putting it on notice. The finding of tampering was arrived at, relying on the report filed by the customs authorities, concerning the very same subject matter. The petitioner submits, copy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Karnataka High Court in Medical Relief Society of South Kanara v. Union of India [1999 (111) E.L.T. 327], wherein it was held that the treatment, if any, given to the persons attending the medical camps, cannot be reckoned as treatment granted to the outpatients, in terms of Exhibit P1 notification. 4. Before dealing with the reval contentions, it will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of Exhibit P1 notification, which reads as follows : "1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 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, rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some forged documents, to inflate the number of patients, treated free by it. It is further found that even assuming, all the documents produced by the petitioner are genuine, even then, according to its own showing, there is short fall, to fulfil the requirement of free treatment to forty per cent outpatients for various periods. But, the said defect in the petitioner's case is attempted to be got over, by contending that the Hospital is conducting free medical treatment camps and the patients treated there should also be included among the number of outpatients. The finding of the second respondent, as to the dispute whether patients treated in the medical camps could be included among the number of outpatients, is contained in paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned above. The respondents support it, relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Medical Relief Society of South Kanara's case (supra). In medical camps, normally, some preliminary examination alone is conducted. If it is found that a patient requires treatment, normally, he is directed to come to the hospital for further detailed examination and treatment. The word "outpatient" is used in Exhibit P1 in the normal sense, as understood in medical parlance. Outpatient is one, who gets treatment from a hospital without being hospitalised. He is examined, diagnosis is made and medicines are prescribed for a few days. He takes the medicine and comes back after the stipulated days. His ailment may be of such a nature, which may not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent Director General of Health Services and obtained Exhibit P2 Customs Duty Exemption Certificate dated 4-7-1991. On the strength of that certificate, the import was made and it is being used in the hospital. While so, the petitioner was served with a notice by the second respondent, calling upon it to furnish certain details, to ascertain whether it is complying with the stipulations contained in the exemption notification, during the post-import period. It filed Exhibit P5 reply. But, without hearing the petitioner, the second respondent cancelled Exhibit P2, by Exhibit P6 order. When the customs authorities took further action, pursuant to Exhibit P6, the petitioner filed Exhibit P8 representation before the Government, praying to rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
