TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....single mode an d2 to 75 MJ in multimode. 3. Model 8800 Ocutome Basic System 230 V/Model 8300 Fragmatone 230V. 4. Adopter for 40A with focusing optics and eye fitter for connecting 40A to PV.150 IND-YAG Laser. 5. Three mirror contact Glass 903 for examination of the entire fundus & Gonioscopy for Slit Lamp 900. 6. Green line/Biopolar coagulation unit 200/220V/with 400/foot switch serial No. 3108. All these goods were valued at Rs. 19,11,063/- on which duty of Rs. 26,03,082/- were imported under Bills of Entry No. 229861 dated 24-5-88, 220641 dated 8-4-88, and 280871 dated 8-6-88 claiming exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Notification No. 64/88-Cus provided certain conditions to be satisfied by the Hospital in question which intended to import the hospital equipments before claiming exemption under the said notification. The DGHS called information from the importer to ascertain whether the importer fulfilled the conditions for obtaining/retaining CDEC for import of hospital equipments. The information furnished by the importer was checked by a team o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayable on such goods. Therefore, when an order is passed for payment of customs duty along with an order of imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods it shall only be referable to Sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act. It would not attract Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. (ii) S.V.M.C.'S Inlaks & Budhrani Hospital & Proposed Research Centre v. C.C., Mumbai - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 385 (Tri.-Mumbai) for the proposition that notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-88 has been repealed before the issue of show cause notice in this case. Proceedings, therefore, initiated after rescinding of the same cannot be upheld. In the said decision it was also held that they do not charge any fees on the patient treated as Indoor patient since it is a charitable hospital and keeping record of the income of the patient while treating a patient may be counterproductive. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the appellants' submission for affording free treatment to poor who is earning Rs. 500/- per month. 3. An affidavit was also filed on behalf of the appellants that Regional Institute of Opthalmology and Eye Hospital Trust working on no profit or no loss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 500/- per month. The income of patients is not recorded on the case sheet. As such claim of the hospital of treating all indoor patients with income less than Rs. 500/- per month is incorrect. 5. Before the adjudicating authority the appellants furnished certain figures of Indoor and Outdoor patients which were claimed to have been treated free of charge. However, these figures were taken for 5 or 6 days in each year and these are entirely different from the figures supplied to DGHS. Figures supplied by the appellants in the affidavit now include the figure of Sitapur Hospital which is a different hospital although run by the same Trust. Despite this the affidavit claimed that the appellant hospital is also run by a public trust whereas before the DGHS it was claimed as a private trust. In the affidavit it has been claimed before us that it is the public charitable trust. Before the DGHS it was not claimed as charitable trust. Therefore, it was pleaded that the affidavit may be rejected and the finding of the lower authorities may be upheld. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) Mediwell Hospital v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be taken as well as the nature of action." The Supreme Court upheld the finding of the adjudicating authority for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. 6. It was also argued that action can be taken against the appellants despite rescinding of notification No. 64/88 under the provisions of Section 159A of the Customs Act. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the main issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellants have fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, and whether the goods are liable for confiscation and appellants are liable to penalty. 8. We find that the adjudicating authority under the impugned order has demanded duty of Rs. 16,24,403/- from M/s. Regional Institute of Opthalmology & Eye Hospital Trust on the ground that the customs duty exemption certificate dated 7-4-88 granted to them by DGHS on the basis of which they had availed the customs duty exemption was cancelled by the said authorities under their letter No. 2-37026/3/91/MG dated 16-3-2001. This action was taken by DGHS as the hospital has not treated the patients free whose monthly income is less than Rs. ....