TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfied the conditions of the Notfn. No. 64/88-Cus dated 1/3/1998 accordingly, the benefit of the notification is not available to the imported medical equipments cleared by availing the benefit of exemption. Accordingly, I confirm the duty demand of Rs. 4,59,760.40 (Rupees four lakhs fifty nine thousand seven hundred and sixty and paisa forty only) on the importers M/s. Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai in terms of the Notification No. 65/88-Cus dated 1/3/1998. (2) I order confiscation of the medical equipments imported vide B/E No. 1236 dated 18.11.2000 under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However I given an option to the importers to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 46,000/- (Rupees forty six thousan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 average, to at least 40% of all their outdoor patients and (b) free to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than rupees five hundred per month, and keeping for this purpose at least 10% of all the hospitals beds reserved for such patients; and (c) at reasonable charges, either on the basis of the income of the patients concerned or otherwise, to patients other than specified in clauses (a) and (b)" Pursuant to the informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before us. 3. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant made submission on various counts. He submits that the cross examination of member of Rosha committee was directed by the Tribunal which was not complied with in the denovo adjudication therefore there is violation of natural justice. He further submits that the appellant is Charitable Organization and falls under Sr. 1 of the table of the notification wherein no conditions are required to be fulfilled, therefore even if it is assumed that the condition provided in Sr. 2 has not been fulfilled, exemption is otherwise available as per Sr. 1 of the table of the notification. He further submits that appellant have satisfie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oforma. Appellant in this regard placed on record Joint Director's certificate for the year 1987-88 to 1992-93. He submits that the department has not produced any contrary evidence to show that appellant have not complied with the condition prescribed in the notification. As regard the statement of the employees, he submits that the statement does not project factual position as the statement was given on the examination basis only. He further submits that as per the impugned order the appellant have not fulfilled the condition during the period 1994-95. The Notification No. 64/88-Cus was rescinded by the Notification No. 99/94-Cus w.e.f. 1/3/1994. As per the Hon'ble Madras High Court Judgment in case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Committee report appellant has violated the condition 2(a) and 2(b) of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, therefore the Adjudicating authority has rightly denied the exemption. As per the contention of the appellant that violation of condition during period 1994-95 when Notification No. 64/88-Cus ceased to exist as the same was rescinded vide Notification No. 99/94-Cus dated 1/3/1994. He submits that this Tribunal on the similar set of facts in case of Sunitidevi Singhania Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs. C.C., ACC, Mumbai [2015 (317) ELT 81 (Tri. Mumbai)] held that as per the judgment of Commissioner Vs. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre [2001 (132) ELT 257 (S.C.)] the condition imposed under notification is continuing obligation on importe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case, the imported goods were confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed to be redeemed. The order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon, on the ground that the importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which the exemption on goods was granted." And another is in case of Sir H.N. Hospital & Research Centre (Supra) where this Tribunal has allowed the appeal holding that condition of the notification 64/88-Cus for the period past rescission of notification is not required to be fulfilled. 6.1 In view of the aforesaid two conflicting judgments, we are of the view that this....