Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellants contended that the appellants being a charitable organization, were not required to fulfill the condition of serial No. 2 to Table to Notification No. 64/87-CUS since condition given at serial No. 2 would apply to hospitals under that serial no. and similar conditions attached at serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the notification would apply to hospitals under those serial nos. Their hospital falls under serial No. 1 and not such conditions of minimum percentage of treatment of outdoor patients, indoor patients etc. are prescribed at hospital at serial No. 1. They also submitted that the conditions under which the CDEC certificates have been treated as invalid and withdrawn would apply only to categories of hospitals covered under serial No. 2 only and since they do not come under serial No. 2 Table to the Notification it does not appeal to them and they relied on the case of St. Stephens Hospital v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2000 (121) ELT 91 (T). They further submitted that being a charitable hospital medical record were maintained by them were scrutinized by the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai and thereafter, certificates were issued certifying that they have satisfied conditions of Notification No. 64/88-CUS since these original records which were verified are now not available and records of the outdoor patient. OPD registers for the period 1994-95 were furnished to Shri G. Anantharaman, Member of Rosha Committee on 27.8.1998 which was not returned to them, they are not in a position to produce the said registers/records to prove that 40% of deserving patient were given treatment, however, they are having material to prove that they are giving fee treatment to out patients and 10% beds are reserved for such patients and the material would conclusively prove that more than 40% of the patients were treated as free of the charge. They submitted that findings of the Commissioner on this account are factually not correct and affidavits filed by them were not considered. There is no contrary evidence produced by the department in the present case to show that the appellants have not complied with the condition of the said notification. The statement recorded from the employees will not be sufficient position. Since the notification has been rescinded after 1.3.1994 they are not required to comply with the condition of that notification. After that date in any case the condition of the said notification are not required to be meet post import condition. Therefore Section 111(o) is not attracted and reliance on Jagdish Cancer & Centre - 2001 (132) ELT 257 was not applicable. They submitted that the reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in chaparral Heavy Services Ltd. - 2001 (130) ELT 34 (Kar.) was not correct and penalty imposed can not be upheld or is called for.