Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 1996
16. The condition of free treatment to indoor patients with income
below the prescribed threshold stands on two limbs and the
conjunction 'and' makes it indubitably clear that these have be to
viewed for compliance in terms of complementing each other.
Accordingly, to conform to the condition, not less than a tenth of the
beds must be earmarked for patients in this category and whose
treatment must be effected without any charge. That a tenth of the
beds had been so earmarked is clear from the data furnished to the
adjudicating authority and has not been controverted. The charging of
patients who occupied beds in excess of that so earmarked is not,
therefore, a transgression from the stipulations prescribed for
continual conformity. The finding of the adjudicating authority that
the compliance is in conformity only when the beds so earmarked are
relatable to treatment with the imported equipment is clearly
executive overreach in the absence of any such delineation in the
conditions appended to the privilege of exemption. The pre-requisites
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Mediwell Hospital and
in Health Care Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 425 (SC)]
are not set forth in the impugned order and the detriment determined,
thereof, fails in consequence.
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Shah Diagnostic Institute Private ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And The Assistant ... on 7 March, 2006
17. We may also mention in passing that the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shah Diagnostic Institute Pvt Ltd
v. Union of India [2008 (222) ELT 12 (Bom)] may not find relevance
C/502/2010
15
here. In the impugned proceedings, the notice was issued in 1999 long
after the rescinding of the exemption notification, with its attendant
conditions, in 1994 and including alleged contraventions after the
exempting notification ceased to exist. The decision in re Shah
Diagnostics was rendered in a dispute pertaining to the period when
the notifications subsisted but decided upon after the rescinding of the
notification. The relevance of section 159A arises from these facts.
The communication from Director General of Health Services, being a
post-importation withdrawal of a certificate relevant to importation
and devoid of consequential impact, cannot be relied upon, in the
absence of any scrutiny of relevant information, as a substitute for a
finding on facts of post-importation compliance.
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Fortis Hospital Ltd vs Commr.Of Customs,Import on 24 March, 2015
That interpretation has since been overruled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Fortis Hospital Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs,
Import [2015 (318) ELT 551 (SC)] by holding that
'13. It is not in dispute that show cause notice in the instant
case was issued under Section 124 of the Act. Once such a
show cause notice was issued and as can be seen from the
proposed action which was contemplated in this provision (as
has been taken note of above), it was also confined to
confiscation of the imported machinery and imposition of
penalty. Nothing was stated about the payment of duty.
However, in spite of the fact that show cause notice was
limited to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty,
the final order which was passed included the direction to
pay the customs duty as well. It is clear that when such an
action was not contemplated, which even otherwise could not
be done while exercising the powers under Section 124 of the
Act, in the final order there could not have been direction to
pay the duty.