Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
M.S. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital vs Commissioner Of Customs on 25 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(184)ELT82(TRI-BANG)
ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. These two appeals arise on account of the Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, consequent to the remand order passed by the CESTAT, as per the Final Order Nos. 116 to 125/2002, dated 29-1-2002.
2. The issue relates to the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. In the de novo order the Commissioner has given a finding that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification and therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification. Apart from confiscating the imported equipments, he has demanded the duty and imposed equal penalty. Interest under Section 28AB of the Act has also been demanded.
3. Shri K.S. Ravi Shanker, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
4. The learned Advocate urged that the remand order is more or less a re-production of the earlier order. The adjudicating authority has only renumbered the paragraphs. Hence, the de novo proceedings appear to be an empty formality. He has compared the findings in the two orders to show that they are the same. By this act, the adjudicating authority has violated the directions of the Tribunal. Even though no statutory register has been prescribed in the notification, the appellants had maintained full records of the free treatment of outdoor patients and also free treatment of indoor patients belonging to the families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month. It was further submitted that more than 10% of the beds have been reserved for the people with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month. The main grievance of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority has not at all considered their records while passing the adjudication orders. It was further urged that the adjudicating authority has taken a view that taking of Rs. 10/- as registration fee would tantamount to not extending the free treatment. He said that since no charges for consultancy/medicines, etc. were charged, charging a paltry amount of Rs. 10/- as registration fee should not come in the way of extending the benefit of the notification.
5. The learned SDR submitted that the adjudicating authority has given a very detailed finding on the issue and said that the orders deserve to be upheld.
6. We have considered the rival contentions. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that free treatment was not given on account of charging of Rs. 10/- as registration fee. In our view, charging of a meagre amount of Rs. 10/- as registration fee from the patients should not stand in the way of extending the benefit of the notification. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority has found that in certain cases, the appellants charged fees from the patients with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month. The appellants contended that in those cases, the patients mis-declared that their income to be less than Rs. 500/- per month, but later it was found that their income was more than Rs. 500/- per month. In any case, so long as 10% of the hospital beds are reserved for free treatment to the indoor patients, the benefit of notification cannot be denied on the other extraneous grounds. In this case, as contended by the learned Advocate, principles of 'Natural Justice' have been violated in not examining the records produced by the appellants as evidence for fulfilment of the conditions of the exemption notification. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we remand the matter to the Original Authority to decide the issue after observing the principles of 'Natural Justice'. All the issues are kept open.