TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants M/s. South Delhi Cancer Detection & Research Institute which is a unit of M/s ADS Diagnostic Ltd., B-22, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, according to the Department, had imported one CT (Computerised Tomography) Scanner and one Ultrasound Scanner along with accessories and spares duty free under the provision of Customs Notification No. 279/83, dated 30-9-1983 and that the appellants M/s. South Delhi Cancer Detection & Research Institute had not fulfilled the post importation condition of providing free treatment on an average to atleast 40% of its total outdoor patients as stipulated in the aforesaid notification. Accordingly, the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner who has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M. Chandrashekharan, learned Senior Advocate accompanied by Shri Pradeep Jain, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants have imported one CT Scanner and one Ultrasound Scanner along with accessories and spares in the year 1986 and they are entitled to benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 279/83-Cus., dated 30-9-1983. Referring to the said notification, he drew our attention to the relevant portion in clause 3 of the said table which states that "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
....vis the total number of patients is only 10.14% for CT Scan Machine and 8.72% in the case of Ultrasound Machine during the period December, 1986 and July, 1992. These charts have been prepared from the information available in the 3C Forms prepared daily in respect of both the aforesaid machines by the institution. It is further observed that the information tabulated in these charts is for a period of about 6 years which is a fairly long period for evaluating the statistical data on the subject and for determining the minimum percentage of patients treated free of charge for the purposes of eligibility to the exemption granted by Notification No. 279 of 1983. I, therefore, see no reason to agree with the suggestion made by the noticee that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said judgment which reads as under:- "As regards the post importation condition that 40% of the outdoor patients should have been treated free of cost the appellant had contended that the requirement of treating 40% of the outdoor patients free of charge was on an average and not on any particular date. They had stated that out of 4544 patients, free diagnostic treatment was provided to 1797 patients. There was a nominal shortfall. As no particular span of period was provided in the notification, they stated that the deficiency could be made good in the subsequent period i.e. subsequent to the inquiry/checking/seizure. We do not consider that on this account, the demand for the customs duty or imposition of penalty/fine could be jus....