TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P) No.17577 is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition No.5594/2006. 5. The latter case has been dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the findings recorded in the order dated 17th of December, 2004 passed in WP No.2613/2004 M/s. JaslokHospital and Research Centre v. Union of India & Ors. 6. As the point involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are taken up for disposal together by this common Judgment. 7. For the convenience of reference, the facts are taken from C.A. No.7284/2005. 8. The appellant obtained Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (for short 'CDEC'), from the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), for import of various hospital eq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Z.37024/13/92-MG dated 14th November, 2000 addressed to the Chief Executive Director of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant-hospital had failed to comply with the conditions laid down in para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification extracted above. 10. After about three years, the appellant made a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 24th September, 2003, seeking categorization under para 1 (extracted below) instead of para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification. "1. organization as may be approved, from time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare" 11. The said representation came to be rejected by the DGHS vide its order dated 18th March, 2004. 12. Aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tients whose income is less than Rs.500/- per month. 15. The High Court, by the impugned order, has upheld the order passed by the DGHS. It has been held that the order passed by the DGHS is not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. That the appellant could not claim change in the categorization after having enjoyed the benefit under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification for about fifteen years. During the said period of fifteen years, the appellant did not raise any grievance with regard to its non-categorization under para 1 of the said Table and its categorization under para 2 thereof. 16. Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was entitled to claim change in the categorization and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereunder have been fulfilled. The High Court also committed the same error and hence the order of the High Court also suffers from the same infirmity and is liable to be set aside." 17. Without going into the question regarding applicability or otherwise of the decision referred to above, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought for. The appellant had given up its challenge to the communication dated 14th November, 2000 cancelling/withdrawing the CDECs issued to the appellant for having violated the conditions laid down for grant of exemption. The effect of the communication dated 14th November, 2000 is that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption under any of the clauses of the afores....