https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50251 Notification No. 64/88-Cus. required an installation certificate only for hospitals in the process of being established under paragraph 4 of the Table, not for a hospital falling under paragraph 2. The appellant hospital was treated as covered by paragraph 2, and there was no material to show it was under establishment; the record also indicated that installation details had been intimated to the authorities. On that basis, the condition requiring proof that the equipment had been installed and the hospital had started functioning was not attracted, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. The duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:03:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50251 Notification No. 64/88-Cus. required an installation certificate only for hospitals in the process of being established under paragraph 4 of the Table, not for a hospital falling under paragraph 2. The appellant hospital was treated as covered by paragraph 2, and there was no material to show it was under establishment; the record also indicated that installation details had been intimated to the authorities. On that basis, the condition requiring proof that the equipment had been installed and the hospital had started functioning was not attracted, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. The duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50251