Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cdr Diagnostic Clinic vs Commissioner Of Customs (Airport) on 22 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(166)ELT386(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. None is present on behalf of the appellants. No request from them for adjournment has been even received. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to adjourn the case. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. SDR.
2. The main issue involved in the present appeal which has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority, is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88 for the import of medical equipments as detailed in the show cause notice. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are only Diagnostic Centre. They imported medical equipments meant for scanning of the patients. They have sought the benefit of the above said notification regarding payment of customs duty, on those equipments, but the same has been denied to them on two grounds, firstly, that they cannot be termed as 'hospital' in terms of the said notification and secondly, that they even had no facility for treatment of indoor patients.
3. We have heard ld. SDR.
4. The issue as to whether a 'Diagnostic Centre' can be said to be a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. or not already stands decided in the case of Kailash Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Centre P. Lid. v. D.G. of Health Services, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 281 (A.P.) by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was an identical case and in that case it has been ruled that the 'diagnostic centre is not a hospital within the meaning of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and as such is not entitled to the benefit of said notification. This view has also been taken by this Bench in Final Order No. 765/2003, dated 6-8-2003 in the case of Amar Diagnostic Centre and Hospitals (P) Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 63 (T). Therefore, on this ground alone, the appellants' plea for availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. cannot be allowed.
5. We also find from the impugned order that the appellants have got no facility for indoor patients treatment and no bed was found available with them in the clinic, at the time of inspection carried out by the competent authority. Even the Director General of Health Services vide their letter dated 27-10-1997 had withdrawn the two CDECs issued to the appellants on the ground that they were not having any indoor bed facility so as to claim exemption from payment of customs duty under the said notification. We do not find any evidence on record to contradict these findings of the adjudicating authority recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, benefit of the notification in question, on the second ground, has been also rightly denied to the appellants.
6. In the light of discussion made above, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus., in our view, has been correctly denied to the appellants. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.