TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 1990 and 23rd December 1992, both issued by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS). With the consent of parties, we have taken up the Review Petition itself today. 2. The Review Petition is filed seeking a review of the order dated 7th March 2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (R. M. Lodha & J. P. Devadhar, JJ.). By the order under review, the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners were dismissed and the Petitioners were directed to pay customs duty in the sum of Rs. 3,82,47,105/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of demand, and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, within 4 weeks from the date of the said order. The order further directed that in case the duty is not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, Society, Association, Laboratory, Clinic and Maternity Home, which renders medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment. It has been felt that the expression "any" is an omnibus provision, and the term "medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment" means any one of or all three treatments. 3. Considering above, I realise that for "diagnostic purposes" no bed is required. Hence, the bed requirement cannot be essential for receiving the benefit of CDEC. Further, the diagnostic equipment which are very costly worth several crores of rupees cannot be afforded by the Government and such services are being provided by the private sector. These services do not require indoor facilities and are mostly located in private sector. This point ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 64/88-Cus., I am directed to inform your that a high level decision has been arrived in this Directorate stating that for "dagnostic purposes" no bed is required. Hence the bed requirement cannot be essential for receiving the benefit of customs duty exemption for import of hospital equipments under the said notification. This was earlier conveyed to Collector of Customs vide D.O. letter No.Z.37037/8/90-MG dated 28.12.1990 of Dr. G. K. Vishwakarma, the then Director General of Health Services, a copy of which is enclosed. In view of the facts mentioned above I am directed to clarify that the Shah Dianostic Institute, Bombay though a diagnostic centre and have no indoor patient treatment facility is eligible for availing the be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8) 8 SCC 612] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not a sufficient ground for review ex-debito justitiae. The relevant portion of this decision reads thus:- "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained under RTI Act, 2005, would not in any way tilt the needle in favour of the Review Petitioners. Those were letters written by the DGHS to the Customs Department imploring them to also include within their notification diagnostic centres who do not have inpatient beds. The customs authorities have not, despite these letters, modified the conditions set out in the exemption notifications. They continued to stand. In these circumstances, those letters would not in any way have the effect of modifying exemption notifications which would then entitle to the Petitioners to claim the benefits thereunder. Once these are the facts, we are clearly of the view that these letters do not in any way entitle us to review the order dated 7th March 200....