https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122634 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to meet the requirement of providing free treatment to 40% of outdoor patients as mandated by Notification No. 64/88-Cus for duty exemption eligibility. Despite the appellant's arguments and past examinations, the Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the exemption conditions. As the appellant did not fulfill the obligation in most years, the appeal was dismissed, rendering the appellant ineligible for the benefit of duty exemption. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2017 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122634 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to meet the requirement of providing free treatment to 40% of outdoor patients as mandated by Notification No. 64/88-Cus for duty exemption eligibility. Despite the appellant's arguments and past examinations, the Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the exemption conditions. As the appellant did not fulfill the obligation in most years, the appeal was dismissed, rendering the appellant ineligible for the benefit of duty exemption. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122634