Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. On the basis of Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (hereinafter referred to as CDEC) granted to it by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi (respondent No. 1) the petitioner imported Whole Body Scanner and a spare CT X-ray tube. The grant of CDEC was subject to the provisions contained in Notification No. 64/88-Customs, dated 1.3.1988, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:

NOTIFICATION No. 64/88-CUSTOMS Exemption to hospital equipments imported by specified category of hospitals (charitable) subject to certification from DGHS etc. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). The Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all equipment, apparatus and appliances, including spare parts and accessories thereof, but excluding consumable items (hereinafter referred to as the "hospital equipment"), 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, from--

X X X

3. After considering the reply of the petitioner and report of the Inspecting Committee, respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order dated 19.3.1998 for withdrawal of CDEC granted to the petitioner in 1991 on the ground of noncompliance of the conditions laid down in the notification dated 1 3.1988.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned action on the following grounds:

(i) the order of cancellation of CDEC is violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, it has been held guilty of the allegations which did not form part of the show cause notice;

(ii) the impugned decision suffers from lack of authority, inasmuch as, the notification dated 1.3.1988 does not contain any provision for cancellation CDEC and, even if the power of cancellation is treated as implicit in the power of grant of CDEC, the same cannot be exercised after lapse of 6 years from the date of grant;

(iii) the installation certificate Annexure P.6 issued by respondent No. 1 should be treated as conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioner has complied with the conditions subject to which CDEC was issued;

6. In support of the second ground of challenge, Shri Sarin argued that the impugned decision should be declared as nullity because the notification dated 1.3.1988 does not provide for withdrawal of CDEC. He further argued that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the power to grant CDEC includes the power to withdraw the same, the action taken by the respondents after 6 years of the issuance of CDEC should be declared as unreasonable and violative of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel, 3 years should be treated as the outer limit within which the competent authority could exercise the implied power of cancellation of CDEC. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument of the learned Counsel. No doubt, the notification dated 1.3.1988 does not contain an express provision for cancellation/withdrawal of CDEC but this is not sufficient to denude the competent authority of its power to cancel CDEC on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions subject to which the same was granted. In our opinion, the power vested in the competent authority to grant CDEC includes the power to withdraw the same. The view of ours is in consonance with the settled principle of law that the power vested in the public authority to do a particular thing includes the power to undo.