TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital for treating patients suffering from cancer and related diseases, and in the process the petitioner also runs a research center. The petitioner is an institute recognized by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a Regional Cancer Center. 3. The petitioner is managed by a governing body constituted of eight members, wherein four members are nominated by the State Government as provided by the Constitution of the petitioner-Society. 4. By virtue of Notification No. 63/88-Customs dated 1st March, 1988 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the petitioner becomes entitled to seek exemption in relation to equipments, apparatus and appliances including the spares thereof and accessories, but excluding consumable i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter inspecting the records, the officers came to the conclusion that as post importation conditions of Notification No.64/88 had not been satisfied, the petitioner was not eligible to retain CDECs. The CDECs already issued to the petitioner were withdrawn and cancelled. This took place by virtue of communication dated 16th March, 2001. The petitioner challenged the same by way of various communications made through the State Government along with a representation and a prayer to grant personal hearing. Though the said communication viz. 16th March, 2001 (Annexure-E) is also made a part of the prayer, the Court has not taken up the same for consideration as the same involves entering into questions of fact which can be decided only after lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f institutions 'run' by the Govt., was examined by the Department of Revenue and Department of Legal Affairs wherein it was observed that "GCRI is a registered body under the Society Act and is run by an autonomous body namely Gujarat Cancer Research Society. Thus merely because of the facts that the institute receives aid from the State and Central Government and has their monies on the governing body, apparently it cannot be said to be an institute run by the Government, Deptt. of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law has concurred with the views expressed by the Deptt. of Revenue. 12. In view of the position and facts explained above, this Directorate is of the view that M/s. Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad is not entitled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Tariff Act; (i) the hospital produces a certificate from the Directorate General of Health Services to the Government of India or the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Government of India to the effect that the said hospital falls in either of the categories specified in the said Table; and (ii) the head of the hospital certifies that the hospital equipment in question are not being manufactured in India and are essential for running of maintenance of the hospital. TABLE All hospitals run by - (a) the Central Government, a State Government, a Union Territory Administration or a local authority or (b) ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Clause (a). As can be seen from the language employed each of the clauses is separated by the use of the term "or". This indicates that each clause operates on its own, independent of the other clauses. On a plain reading of the three clauses appearing in the Table, it is not possible to read requirements of any of the clauses overlapping each other. 11. It is an admitted fact that neither clause (a) nor clause (b) is applicable to the petitioner-Society. Therefore, the only question that survives is whether the petitioner fulfils the requisite conditions stipulated by clause (c). 12. Clause (c) requires in the first instance that a hospital should be run by a society, and such society must be registered under any law relating to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n clause (a). In the present case, it is not even disputed that the petitioner-Society is not being controlled by the State Government. Even in the affidavit-in-reply the same stand is adopted without appreciating the distinction between the two notifications and independent requirements of clauses (a) and (c) of Notification No. 63/88. Another error is that the authorities have read the conditions for applicability of Notification No. 64/88 as being relevant for determination of availability of benefit under Notification No. 63/88. 14. It is necessary to reiterate that the certificate was issued to the Petitioner-Society under clause (c) of the Table below Notification No. 63/88 and hence, unless and until the respondent authorities are....