TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Director General of Health Services in terms of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. The bills of entries filed by the appellant were assessed by extending the benefit subject to the condition that they fulfilled the requirement of the said notification. The CDECs issued by DGHS were withdrawn/cancelled by Authorities (DGHS) as per the letter dated 2-2-2001 on the ground that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions of the Notification i.e. (a) providing free treatment on an average to 40% of all out door patients (b) to give free treatment to all indoor patients whose family income was less than Rs. 500/- per month and to keep for the above purpose 10% of the hospital beds reserved for such patients. The lower auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;Learned counsel would draw our attention to the earlier Final Order of the Tribunal. He would submit that as regards the cancellation of CDECs the appellants are in writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of AP and the Hon'ble High Court of AP has not delivered any judgment. As regards the condition of free treatment of 40% of out-door patients and reserving 10% of the beds for poor patients whose monthly income is less than 500/-. He would submit that they had maintained records. The adjudicating authority has also held that one Multi Channel Cardioscope and spare parts of Angioscope were imported under Notification No. 64/88. It is his submission that these two instruments were never a part of the Notification No. 64/88 but were i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been addressed by the adjudicating authority in the order-in-original. The claim of the appellant for benefit of alternative notification needs to be addressed by the adjudicating authority. In view of the claim of the appellant for exemption for these two items, under other notifications as indicated herein needs to be addressed and that can be done only by the adjudicating authority looking at the records. We find from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has not considered the submissions made by the appellant only on the ground that the de novo order does not direct the authority to do so. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that in paragraph-2 this Bench has clearly held that all the connected issues are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellation of the CDECs is in force. The second condition which has to be satisfied by the appellant regarding the free treatment of 40% of the patients out-door patients and reserving of 10% of the beds for the poor people whose monthly income is less than Rs. 500/-, the verification caused by the adjudicating authority does indicate that the appellant has not been doing it so. In the absence of fulfillment of the conditions of the said Notification No. 64/88-Cus, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification. Having not fulfilled the condition, the hospital equipment imported claiming the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. are liable for confiscation. The duty liability is also to be discharged. We find that this iss....