<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (3) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107285</link>
    <description>A customs exemption for hospital equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. applied where the hospital met the prescribed conditions. A certified photocopy of the non-manufacture certificate was accepted because the original had been misplaced and was already on departmental record. The installation certificate requirement was confined to hospitals still under establishment and did not apply to an existing hospital. Compliance with the free-treatment condition was found from evidence showing treatment of at least 40% of outdoor patients free of charge and reservation of 10% of beds for eligible indoor patients; the fact that fewer than 10% of indoor patients actually availed free treatment did not defeat eligibility, because the notification required bed reservation, not actual utilisation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107285</link>
      <description>A customs exemption for hospital equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. applied where the hospital met the prescribed conditions. A certified photocopy of the non-manufacture certificate was accepted because the original had been misplaced and was already on departmental record. The installation certificate requirement was confined to hospitals still under establishment and did not apply to an existing hospital. Compliance with the free-treatment condition was found from evidence showing treatment of at least 40% of outdoor patients free of charge and reservation of 10% of beds for eligible indoor patients; the fact that fewer than 10% of indoor patients actually availed free treatment did not defeat eligibility, because the notification required bed reservation, not actual utilisation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>