9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fail to comply with conditions; that there was continuing obligation on the part of the Appellants to discharge the obligations under the Notification; that the duty liability fell on the importer since the condition of para 3, and para 1 to 4 of the Table to the said notification was in the nature of a post-importation condition, the liability to duty was not subject to any time-limit. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.). The Commissioner held that the Appellants failed to produce the installation certificate issued by DGHS; that the installation certificate is issued on the basis of the fact whether the hospital would be able to function in its full meaning regarding percentage free treatment of the condition laid down in para 3 of the Table annexed to the Notification; that four conditions stated in the Table at Para (a), (b), (c) and (d) apply to all or in other cases to any of the specific category of institutions mentioned in the Table annexed to the notification, if specifically mentioned in respect of a particular category; that the Appellants had admitted in their doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in Dewan Chand Satyapal Agarwal Imaging Research Centre v. C.C., New Delhi, 2000 (39) RLT 1084 (CEGAT). He further contended, neither any penalty is imposable nor any interest is recoverable in respect of import effected before the provisions of Sections 28AB and 114A of the Customs Act came into force in view of decision in Dewan Chand's case, supra; that demand of duty beyond the limitation period specified under Section 28 of the Act was also held to be time-barred in Dewan Chand's case. He relied upon the decision in Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre v. C.C. (Imports), Mumbai, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 97 (T), Bharti Telecom v. C.C., Nhava Sheva, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 133 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 266 and Nippon Andiotronix Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 736 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 393 and Yellamma Dasappa v. C.C., Bangalore, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 67 (Kar). 5Countering. the arguments, Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR, submitted that the reliance has been wrongly placed on the decision in St. Stephens Hospital case as it is a private hospital more than 100 years old run by a charitable trust; that such an hospital cannot be equated with the present Appellants which is a new Centre, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that there is mention of conditions in the show cause notice only in general terms, as a narration only; that in operative portion, the allegation made is only regarding non-submission of installation certificate and there is no allegation regarding violation of other conditions. 7.We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88 exempts all equipment, apparatus and appliances, the import of which is approved either by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or by the DGHS, as essential for use in any hospital specified in the table below. The said Table is extracted below : TABLE 1. All such hospitals as may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to be run or substantially aided by such charitable organisation as may be approved, from time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 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, religion or language but also:- (a) free, on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of clearances of the said hospital equipment that the same is being imported in accordance with the conditions specified in proviso to that paragraph ; (b) the importer shall give an undertaking in writing to the Assistant Collector at the time of clearance of the said hospital equipment that the importer shall furnish certificates from the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or from the Directorate General of Health Services, Government of India within such period as the Assistant Collector of Customs may specify in this behalf or within such extended period as the Assistant Collector of Customs, on sufficient cause being shown, may allow in each case, to the effect - (i) that such hospital equipment has been linstalled in the hospital; and (ii) that such hospital has started functioning ; (c) the importer shall furnish, at the appropriate time, the certificates referred to in (b); (d) the importer executes a Bond in such form and for such sum as may be specified by the Assistant Collector of Customs binding himself to pay, on demand, an amount equal to the duty leviable on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate from the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs or DGHS to the effect that the imported hospital equipment has been installed in the hospital and that such hospital has started functioning does not apply to the Appellants in view of the decision in St. Stephens Hospital's case. We also observe that the Appellant's contentions that they had submitted the installation report to DGHS in 1992 and the same was returned to them by DGHS with the Direction to submit through State Health Department which also forwarded the requisite information about installation have not been rebutted by the Department. Thus the fact of installation of the imported equipment cannot also be disputed. We do not agree with the submissions of the ld. DR that the show cause notice was issued with reference to the contravention of all the conditions specified in the notification regarding free medical treatment to 40% outdoor patient, etc. No doubt the conditions were mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the Appellants, but nowhere it was alleged that these conditions were contravened by the Appellants. In para 4 of the notice only it was alleged that the Appellants "did not furnish any installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
