TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the requirement of furnishing an installation certificate under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. applied to the appellant hospital, and whether denial of exemption on that ground was justified.
Analysis: Notification No. 64/88-Cus. grants exemption to approved hospital equipment and contains a proviso requiring certificates and a bond only in relation to hospitals in the process of being established under paragraph 4 of the Table. The appellant hospital was held to fall under paragraph 2, and there was no material to show that it was an under establishment within paragraph 4. The condition regarding production of a certificate that the equipment had been installed and the hospital had started functioning was therefore not attracted. The record also showed that installation had in fact been intimated to the authorities, and the Department did not rebut the appellant's explanation regarding forwarding of installation details through the State Health Department.
Conclusion: The installation-certificate requirement did not apply to the appellant, and denial of exemption on that basis was unsustainable. The order confirming duty demand, penalty, and confiscation was set aside, and the appeal succeeded on merits.
TaxTMI 
