TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i/by Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Shri S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. ) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges a decision dated 2391997 of respondent No.2 and a demand notice issued by respondent No.4 on 28101997. 2. The contention raised before us by Mr. Ingale, appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned decision is ex facie illegal inasmuch as the Customs Notification No.64/88, dated 131988, issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was fully complied with. The second respondent failed to consider that the petitioner is a Trust. It is a charitable Trust running a medical diagnostic centre. There is no question of indoor patient treatment facilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia whereas the second respondent is the Director General of Health Services, Government of India. The third respondent is the Secretary, Public Health Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent Nos.4 and 6 are the Officers exercising powers under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. After setting out the aims and objectives of the Trust and the relevant terms and conditions of the exemption Notification, it is stated that the petitioner imported certain medical equipments. The petitioner applied to the Government of India for permission to import these items free of customs duty by availing of this exemption Notification. The second respondent duly verified the application and scrutinised the docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd rather the third respondent certified that the petitioner is indeed rendering charitable services and has treated certain patients free of charge at its diagnostic centre. 10. Mr. Ingale submits that earlier a writ petition was filed because the respondents, and particularly respondent Nos.4 and 5 were seeking to enforce their orders and directions. That is how this Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation and directed the concerned authorities to consider it in accordance with law. It is upon this direction being complied with, that on 2391997, firstly, the second respondent rejected the request so as to enable the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the exemption Notification and thereafter, based on that the fourth r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 per cent 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 per cent of all the hospital 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 those specified in Cls. (a) and (b)." 12. It may be true as Mr. Ingale would contend that the exemption takes within its import as a hospital even an institution of diagnostic treatment. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indoor patients treatment facilities in the hospital, which is also an undisputed fact, that the petitioner approached this Court. That is how this Court allowed them to make a representation so as to avail of the benefit of the exemption Notification and resist the demand. 13. However, the impugned communications have been issued and demand raised on the footing that diagnostic centres, without indoor patient treatment facilities, are not eligible for customs duty exemption. That is, to our mind, a valid and sound reason. It is consistent with the wording of the Notification. One cannot only take advantage of the fact that an institution of diagnostic treatment can be termed as a hospital and once certified by the Ministry of Health and F....