TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TS OF THE CASE: 2. The petitioners are leading Multi-Specialty Hospitals and pioneer in the field of treatment of serious diseases. Some of the petitioners had received ISO 9002 from the Bureau of Indian Standards. The petitioners/Hospitals require sophisticated equipment to keep up with international standards and therefore, they have to import various medical equipments including Linear Accelerator, Cobalt Therapy Unit, Magnetic Resonant Imager (MRI), CT Scan, etc., 3. The petitioners/hospitals imported various medical equipments between the year 1985 till 1993 under Customs Notification No.64/88 dated 01.03.1988 and claimed exemption from payment of duty. The petitioners state that they had been complying with the procedures and the conditions stipulated in the Notification and the 2nd respondent had been issued Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) in respect of various equipments imported by the petitioners/hospitals between 1985 and 1993. 4. The 2nd respondent in order to overcome certain medical deficiencies, which were noticed brought out certain modification to overcome the same. Accordingly, the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi issued an order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the orders passed in the writ appeal, the 2nd respondent once again called for certain details, which were furnished by the petitioners. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent granted personal hearing, which was attended by the petitioners representatives and the petitioners filed written submissions. However, the 2nd respondent without considering the same and disregarding the observations made by the High Court, in order dated 08.06.2001 in the writ petitions, passed the impugned orders, rejecting the applications and cancelling the exemption certificates already submitted. Thus, the writ petitioners/hospitals are constrained to move the present writ petitions. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2110 of 1998 and W.P.Nos.3652 and 3654 of 1999 are unambiguous with reference to the issues and this Court in clear terms held that the recommendations made by the State authorities by conducting due inspection is binding on the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi. In the absence of any materials available on record to discredit the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he outdoor patients. Further, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the words "at least 40% on an average" cannot be construed that strictly 40% of the outdoor patients have to be treated freely. Sometimes it may depend upon the availability of the patients. If no patient who is entitled for such free treatment comes to the hospital, the management of the hospital cannot be blamed for non-compliance of the said conditions. 11. The petitioners have further reiterated that having derived such exemption, whether it is open to the petitioners to contend that after rescinding of Notification 64/88, it is not open to the authorities to enforce the liabilities. 12. The petitioners, those who are benefited by the tax exemption are bound to discharge the liability during the period when the said Notification 64/88 was in force. Thus, it is open to the authorities to enforce such obligations only during the period, when the Notification 64/88 was in force and not for the subsequent period. Therefore, it is for the authorities to establish that the petitioners had violated the conditions imposed under Notification No.64/88 subsequent to their availing of the benefit of the exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de as the observations made by this Court in writ orders were not followed nor the issues decided by the Apex Court has been followed. 18. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners emphatically contended that the Notification No.64/88 was in force from 01.03.1988 to 01.03.1994 and it was repealed by Notification No.99/94 dated 01.03.1994. The petitioners have complied with the procedures stipulated in 64/88, since the applications submitted by the petitioners were forwarded to the State Government along with their recommendations. The Public Interest Litigation filed before the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.409/96 was two years after the Notification was rescinded. Thus, there is nothing on record to show about the non-compliance of the conditions imposed in Notification 64/88 during the period when the said notification was in force. Therefore, the recourse to Section 159-A of the Customs Act is completely untenable. The petitioners have given free treatment in outdoor centers, wherein their branch hospitals are there. There is no prohibition in the notification for providing such treatments and therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 are untenable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. In the case of Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society Vs. Union of India reported in [2011 (268) E.L.T. 465 (Del.)], wherein, the Delhi High Court held as follows: "23. It must be recalled that the enquiry into whether the hospitals that had imported equipments in terms of Notification No.64 of 1988 had fulfilled the post-import obligations commenced long after the Notification itself was withdrawn. The inquiry was conducted only on account of certain directions issued by this Court in a public interest litigation that such enquiry commenced. Consequently, many hospitals that had imported such equipments were required to produce records from 1985 onwards. Some of them might have preserved those records. But many may not have. This inevitably led to litigation with the Respondents insisting on the hospitals producing proof of having satisfied the post-import obligations. In the circumstances, if at the stage of producing such proof any hospital claims that it should have been treated even to begin with as a charitable hospital such plea ought to be examined by the Respondents and not brushed aside only on the ground that such a plea was not raised earlier. 24. The order dated 8th Febr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y report of the Committee headed by Justice A.S. Qureshi. The terms of reference of the said Committee were as follows: "(a) To review the existing free treatment facilities extended by the Charitable and other Hospitals who have been allotted land on concessional terms/rates by the Government. (b) to suggest suitable policy guidelines for free treatment facilities for needy and deserving patients uniformly in the beneficiary institutions in particular to specify the diagnostic, treatment, lodging, surgery, medicines and other facilities that will be given free or partially free. (c) To suggest a proper referral system for the optimum utilisation of free treatment by deserving and needy patients. (d) To suggest a suitable enforcement and monitoring mechanism for the above including a legal framework." 26. The Committee observed that very few of the hospitals in Delhi were providing free medical services. It observed "but now very few of them are genuinely charitable or social service institutions, such as Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Batra Hospital, etc." It further observed that "some charitable hospitals provide good free treatment facilities for needy and deserving patients....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f issuance of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate for each item of equipment is given in Annexure-A. It is seen that Customs Duty Exemption Certificates for all the 23 items were issued between 22.02.1989 and 02.04.1990. Admittedly, Notification No. 64/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988 was repealed by Notification No. 99/1994, dated 01.03.1994. Therefore, the notification was in force from 01.03.1988 to 01.03.1994. The above Customs Duty Exemption Certificates were all issued by the appellant/respondent to all the 23 equipments well within the period, while notification was in force. 14. It is to be seen whether the authorities can enforce the liability after rescission of Notification No. 64/88. While considering this, it is appropriate to refer the Supreme Court Judgments : (1) State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd.MANU/SC/0325/1985 (2) State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal MANU/SC/0549/1996 17. In view of the above Judgments, the respondent/petitioner, who benefited the tax exemption are bound to discharge their liability during the period when the said Notification No. 64/88 was in force. The authorities can enforce such obligation only during that period when the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4, as already held by this Court, there is no such obligation arising from the Notification No. 64/88 after the date of its repeal. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the certificate given to it by the Delhi Government on 3rd January 2001 that it continued to fulfill its obligations under the Notification No. 64/88 even up to 31st October 2000. Nothing has been shown to this court to discard the earlier approval by the DHS of the Delhi government of the returns filed by the Petitioner of its compliance of the Notification No. 64/88 up to 1st March 1994. In any event up to the time of the impugned order in November 2000, the correctness or the adequacy of the data furnished by the Petitioner was never questioned. Again as regards the Petitioner's performance of it's obligations under Notification No. 64/88, up to 31st October 2000, i.e. beyond the date of its repeal, there is no reason shown why the report dated 3rd January 2001 of the Director (Administration), Lok Nayak Hospital of the GNCTD should not be accepted." 25. In the case of Share Medical Care Vs. Union of India reported in [(2007) 4 SCC 573], the Apex Court held as follows: "15. Fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnished by the petitioner the receipt of which is in fact not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the DGHS. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court quashes the two Show Cause Notices dated 3rd July, 1997 and 9th July, 1997 and the corresponding orders dated 4th November, 1997 and 17th December, 1997 issued by the DGHS withdrawing the four CDECs issued to Petitioner No. 1. The Show Cause Notice dated 3rd January, 1998 issued by the Customs Department to Petitioner No. 1 is also quashed." REPLY BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: 27. The petitioners/hospitals availed the benefits of Custom Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) on import of hospital equipments as a category (2) institution of the table annexed to 64/88-Customs notification. The continuing eligibility of the hospitals to retain/avail CDEC was examined in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in PUCL matter (409/96) and observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital case (CA No.16735/96). Accordingly, a time bound letter was issued to the petitioner hospital on 13.11.1997 to furnish certain informations on fulfillment of conditions of 64/88-Customs notification. From the data ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Hon'ble High Court at Madras. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 8-6-2001, disposed of the petition with certain directions wherein the Learned Single Judge diluted the conditions of the notification, observing that 40% OPD can be compromised by adding the persons attending the camps. Also the Hon'ble Court categorically stated that there is no need to reserve 10% beds for the economically weaker section and only a provision needs to be made. The matter thus remitted back to the Directorate General of Health Services for fresh disposal. This Directorate preferred to file a Writ Appeal (W.A.No.2179-2181/2002) against the order dated 8.6.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Court. 31. The Hon'ble Division Bench passed order dated 22.12.2008 in the matter of Writ Appeal filed by this Directorate. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge, the Division Bench has only looked at the issue of principles of natural justice and has not examined the technical and other law points which was the ground for the appeal. Abiding by the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 22.12.2008, this Directorate issued notice dated 24.03.2009 to the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-Customs notification and the eligibility was as such examined within the purview of that notification strictly in the light of observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mediwell Hospital case. The Apex Court observed that there is a continuous onus on the part of the beneficiary under 64/88-Customs notification to give free treatment to 40% of its OPD patients and to give free treatment to all indoor patients whose income is less than Rs.500/- p.m. This, the petitioners/ hospitals failed to comply with that condition. Hence the benefits of exemption were withdrawn and as such the action of this Directorate is just and on valid grounds. 35. The observation of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.6.2001 that the liabilities arising out of the Customs Notification No.64/88, dated 1.3.88 under which the CDECs were issued earlier has been rescinded vide Notification No.99/94, dated 1.3.94. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mediwell case, which was subsequent to repealing of the notification No.99/94-Customs dated 1.3.94 had held that there is a continuous onus on the part of beneficiary institution to fulfill the said obligations, the DGHS/Ministry of Health and F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be considered only in the light of the notification, pursuant to which the applications were made and to direct that such applications should be disposed of on merits in accordance with the subsequent notifications is absolutely meaningless, since the subsequent notification has not imposed any conditions for availing exemption and the equipments itself are life saving equipment, which concession always remained i.e. even during the currency of the notification No. 64 of 1988. Further considering the pending applications under subsequent notification, wherein no conditions have been imposed, would be frustrating the whole exercise and as such will operate directly against the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital case that the obligations are continuous one and such action goes against the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 38. The Directorate General of Health Services issued custom duty exemption certificates under notification No 64/88-Customs dated 1.3.88 based on petitioners undertaking to fulfill the post import conditions and certification and recommendation of the concerned State Government. Pursuant to the filing of a writ petition No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said notification should be with a reference to out patients treated at the hospital which includes all the equipments imported availing of the duty exemption benefits. It is not the case of the hospital that all the equipments found in the hospital include those imported the scheme pursuant to notification No.64/88-Customs were also made available to those patients in medical camps. Further, the persons attending the medical camp cannot be even called out patients. The notification dated 1.3.88 entails to provide free medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment. Camps are by and large held for screening the population comprising both healthy as well as unhealthy population. Large number of people attend the camps. Only the cases requiring medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment are referred to the hospitals. The intention of the notification to allow duty free import of high tech cost-intensive equipments is for providing secondary and tertiary health care and make them accessible to patients, who does not have access/affordability to such treatment. 40. The averments of the petitioners/hospitals that as per the notification No.64/88-Customs dated 1.3.88 only a provision sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t conditions of the notification No. 64/88-Customs, held that: "A perusal of the condition in the notification indicates that on an average, at least 40 per cent of all outdoor patients should be provided free treatment. It is, thus, at least 40 per cent or may be above. It is submitted that condition nowhere indicates that within what period, the prescribed percentage is to be achieved. It is submitted that it should be during the life of the equipment imported. Thus, shortfall of particular year may be made good in the following year. We are not impressed by this argument. It would, not at all, be necessary to prescribe any period to achieve the given percentage of patients treated free. It should generally be all through the period." 43. The Hon'ble Court further held that "the 10% of the total number of beds are supposed to be reserved for patients of such families in the hospital where the equipment is installed. However, it is stated that this Respondent relied upon the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Mediwell Hospital case who have clearly interpreted the 64/88-Customs notification. The impugned order of cancellation of CDEC is strictly in the light o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for persons belonging to a particular category i.e, income is less than Rs.500/- p.m. It is contended that there is no use in saying that no person belonging to the category has complained that the hospital has not provided them with the free bed. The committee, which inspected the petitioner hospital, was not even able to find a board, showing the provisions of such conditions, which was mandatory under the notification. Unless the people were made aware of the fact of reservation, one cannot be said to belong to that category to avail of such free beds. In the case of Mediwell Hospital (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically interpreted the notification No.64/88-Customs to give free treatment to 40% of its OPD patients and to give free treatment to all indoor patients, whose income is less than Rs.500/- p.m. Therefore, the CDECs issued to the petitioner Institute were conditional subject to fulfillment of these conditions. But the petitioners/hospitals failed to comply with the conditions. Thus, the CDECs were rightly withdrawn in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital case (cited supra). 46. The learned Additiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Centre, it is to be noticed that shortfall in providing free treatment is marginal. The percentage of persons provided free treatment cannot be precise. During certain period, it may be a little less or a little higher. He has also drawn our attention to a chart prepared by the respondent and filed with an affidavit before the CEGAT, showing that the treatment provided to outdoor patients is 39.8 per cent and instead of 10 per cent indoor patients it is 8.9 percent. In connection with this submission, it may be observed that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Commissioner as well as CEGAT in some details and ultimately it has been found that there was a shortfall which is also not disputed by the respondent. A Perusal of the condition in the Notification indicates that on an average, at least 40 per cent of all outdoor patients should be provided free treatment. It is, thus, at least 40 per cent or may be above. It is submitted that condition nowhere indicates that within what period, the prescribed percentage is to be achieved. It is submitted that it should be during the life of the equipment imported. Thus, shortfall of particular year may be made good i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. 53. Article 47 imposes duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. It categorically provides that "the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health." ROLE OF JUDICIARY 54. Several human rights instruments, throughout the globe, have recognized 'right to health' as a basic human right. In India, though 'right to health' is not recognized as a fundamental right expressly, the judiciary by its expounded role has recognized it as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as an adjunct to the 'right to life'. The responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill the 'right to health' lies not only with the medical profession but also with public functionaries such as administrators and judges. 55. Some of the impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment, has the right to take any action which will deprive a person the enjoyment of this basic essential. 60. In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577, the Supreme Court held that environmental, ecological, air and water pollution, etc., should be regarded as amounting to violation of right to health guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 61. In Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 994, it was held that a healthy body is the very foundation for all human activities. In a welfare state, therefore, it is the obligation of the state to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. 62. The Apex Court, in its landmark judgment in Pt.Parmanand Katara v. Union of India,AIR 1989 SC 2039, ruled that every doctor whether at a government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his service with due expertise for protecting life, whether the patient be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to punishment under the law. No law or state action can intervene to avoid/delay, the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. 63. In CESC Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, AIR 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption. In Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 606, Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State." 66. In the case of Kasturba Medical College vs The Union Of India on 4 January, 2018, the High court of Karnataka has held on para 14, 16, 19, 20 and 21 as follows : "14. Beyond a pale of doubt, the provisions relating to exemption from tax or duties have to be strictly construed and except upon satisfaction of the conditions for grant of such exemptions stricto sensu, the exemption from customs duty cannot be given by way of largesse to the beneficiaries, like Hospitals and Medical Institutions in the present case. 16. Be that as it may, the situation as per the terms of Division Bench's judgment in these circumstances thus revert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he competent authority, therefore, should continue to be vigilant and check whether the undertakings given by the applicants are being duly complied with after getting the benefit of the exemption notification and importing without payment of customs duty and if on such enquiry the authorities are satisfied that the continuing obligations are not being carried out then it would be fully open to the authority to ask the person who have availed of the benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipments when have been imported without payment of customs duty. Needless to mention the Government has granted exemption from payment of customs duty with the sole subject that 40% of all outdoor patients and entire Indoor patients of the low income group whose income is less than Rs. 500 per month, would be able to receive free treatment in the institute. The objective must be achieved at any cost, and the very authority who have granted such certificate of exemption would ensure that the obligation imposed on the persons availing of the exemption notification are being duly carried out and on being satisfied that the said obligations have not been discharged they can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and colleagues the benefits of their professional attainments. The physician should practice methods of healing founded on a scientific basis and should not associate professionally with anyone who violates this principle. The honoured ideals of the medical profession imply that the responsibilities of the physician extend not only to individuals but also to society." 55. Under Regulation 1.8, the physician engaged in the practice of medicine has to give priority to the medical interests of the patients and not to the personal financial interests. Regulation 1.8 is extracted hereunder: "1.8 Payment of Professional Services: The physician, engaged in the practice of medicine shall give priority to the interests of patients. The personal financial interests of a physician should not conflict with the medical interests of patients. A physician should announce his fees before rendering service and not after the operation or treatment is underway. Remuneration received for such services should be in the form and amount specifically announced to the patient at the time the service is rendered. It is unethical to enter into a contract of "no cure no payment". Physician rendering serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. They have suffered so long and benefit has not percolated down to them of distributive justice and they are deprived of equal justice and proper treatment due to lack of financial means." ANALYSIS: 70. Exemption Notification No.64/88 Customs dated 01.03.1988 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). The Central Government in the "Public Interest" exempted all equipments, apparatus and appliances, including spare parts and accessories thereof, by excluding consumable items, the import of which is approved either generally or in each case by the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, or by the Directorate General of Health Services to the Government of India, as essential for use in any Hospital specified in the Table below and the Table reads as under: TABLE "All such hospitals as may be certified by the said 1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to be run or substantially aided by such charitable organisation as may be approved, from time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. All such hospitals which may be certified by the said 2. Ministry of Healt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our great Nation and the poorest of poor will not be in a position to get specialised treatment, the Government thought fit and granted exemption from public funds and imposed conditions to provide free treatment for at least 40% of their outdoor patients. The writ petitioners have given undertaking that they will abide by the conditions on availing the exemption from payment of customs duty. 75. Question arises, how to assess factually the implementation part of the conditions. 76. The State Government Authorities conducted an inspection and submitted a report. Based on the report, the Government of Tamil Nadu recommended for issuance of CDECs. The petitioners state that the recommendation was made based on the inspection conducted by the Medical Authorities of the State Government and therefore, it is binding on the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi. 77. In this context, mere recommendation would not confer any right on the person to claim exemption. The authority, who granted exemption invoking the powers under the Customs Act, 1962 is empowered to consider the issues based on factual aspects and has got power to draw inferences, if any discrepancies are found in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for certain diseases, MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) Scan, CT (Computed Tomography) Scan, etc., are taken even for outdoor patients. Therefore, 40% of all the outdoor patients of the petitioners/hospital indicate the patients, who all are coming to the hospital and taking free treatment through the imported medical equipments for which exemption of customs duty is granted. 82. In this context, 10% of the hospital beds are reserved for such patients, if such patients require admission in the hospital. Therefore, the Central Government while issuing notification No.64/88 thought fit that out of 40% outdoor patients, 10% beds are to be reserved for such patients, who all are treated at free of cost in the petitioners/hospitals. Conditions (a) and (b) in the table must be read together and cogently in the context of the purpose and object sought to be achieved by granting exemption from payment of customs duty. The conditions cannot be read in isolation. It is not as if the petitioners can conduct medical camps outside the hospital in order to satisfy the condition and to escape from their committed liability, which would be more beneficial to the poorest of the poor people. Thus, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be fully open to the authorities to ask the persons, who have availed off the benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipments, which have been imported without the payment of customs duty. 86. The objective must be achieved at any cost, and the very authority, who have granted such certificate of exemption would ensure that the obligation imposed on the persons availing off the exemption notification are being duly carried out and on being satisfied that the said obligations had not been discharged, they can enforce realisation of the customs duty from them. 87. No doubt, in the Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Private Limited case(cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made an observation that the hospitals should notify in the local newspaper every month, the total number of patients they have treated and whether 40% of them are indigent persons, earning income less than Rs.500/- per month. However, such notification was found to be not practicable in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court of India. Therefore, whether or not the petitioners are notifying in the local newspaper as per the Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Private ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt of India, in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Jagadis Cancer and Research Centre categorically held that "We feel that the 10 per cent of the total number of beds are supposed to be reserved for patients of such families in the hospital where the equipment is installed. The purpose of the Notification for grant of exemption from payment of customs duty would not be served by making payment of expenditure incurred on some inpatients in some other hospital as alleged. It has also not been shown that alleged arrangements had the approval of the concerned authority or that it was brought to their notice at all". 91. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cases unambiguously clarified that the purpose and object sought to be achieved through notification with reference to the exemption clause must be considered. Conducting outdoor camps in any other place for general diseases without utilising the imported equipments cannot be considered for the purpose of compliance of the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification. 92. Again another Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Sathy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 01.03.1988. 96. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the authority is sitting on Appeal in respect of the order passed by the Constitutional Court and thereby disrespected the authority of the High Court. No doubt, such observations are highly unwarranted. The authorities are empowered to consider the facts independently with reference to documents and evidences, since the High Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. While considering the issues afresh, the authorities ought not to have made an observation that the High Court has committed an error or the observations made in the order are contrary to law. In this regard, the conduct of the authority stands deprecated. However, the said erroneous observations or unwarranted comments made by the authority against the High Court, cannot be a ground to invalidate the order, which is otherwise passed on merits. 97. With reference to the issue regarding the compliance of the clause in notification No.64/88, the Director General of Health Services categorically found that the petitioners hospital are the beneficiaries under the Notification dated 01.03.1988. The compliance of conditions are continuing onu....