Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 1996
8. We find that the adjudicating authority under the impugned order has demanded duty of Rs. 16,24,403/- from M/s. Regional Institute of Opthalmology & Eye Hospital Trust on the ground that the customs duty exemption certificate dated 7.4.88 granted to them by DGHS on the basis of which they had availed the customs duty exemption was cancelled by the said authorities under their letter No. 2-37026/3/91/MG dated 16.3.2001. This action was taken by DGHS as the hospital has not treated the patients free whose monthly income is less than Rs. 500/-. They have not recorded income status of the patients to substantiate their claim that they were treating all such patient having income less than Rs. 500/- per month free of charge. Outdoor patients were also not treated free of charge although 40% of patients were required to be treated free of charge. We find that DGHS before cancellation of CDEC issued notice to the appellants and obtained information about the patients whether Indoor or Outdoor which were treated free of charge and after receipt of information from the appellants an expert committee was sent to visit the hospital and verify the information. After verification of the information DGHS came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to fulfill the conditions described under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appellants have also failed to give complete information to substantiate their claim that they have fulfilled the condition of notification No. 64/88 before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (supra) there was continuing obligation on the appellants to give free treatment to at least 40% of Outdoor patients and at least 10% Indoor patients whose monthly income is less than Rs. 500/-. The appellants could not establish before adjudicating authority that these conditions have been fulfilled. Affidavit submitted before us shows entirely different picture which is contrary to the information furnished to DGHS or to the Commissioner during adjudication. Even now the nature of the Trust is shown as different and the figure of two different hospitals have been added together. Therefore, we cannot accept the figures furnished as correct. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities and DGHS which are based on the information furnished by the appellants and verification done by the expert committee have to be treated as correct. From those figures it is clear that they have neither given free treatment to 40% of Outdoor patients nor given free treatment to 10% of Indoor patients having income of less than Rs. 500/- per month, nor reserved beds for the Indoor patients having monthly income less than Rs. 500/-. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of exemption under notification No. 64/88-Cus. The claim of the appellants that the show cause notice was issued to them after rescinding of notification is correct as the show cause notice was issued to them on 19.11.2003 whereas the notification No. 64/88 was rescinded on 1.3.94. However, show cause notice can be issued in terms of notification No. 64/88-Cus as there is a continuing liability on them and action can be taken for violation of conditions of notification till the life of equipment by virtue of bond executed by them before the customs authorities as well as under Section 159A of the Customs Act. Since, the appellants having not fulfilled the post importation condition, they have rendered the equipments liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The appellants are also liable for penalty for non-fulfillment of post importation condition under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the adjudicating authority. We, accordingly, reject the appeal.
Section 159A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... vs M/S. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre on 2 August, 2001
(ii) C.C. (Imports), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre for the proposition that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon, on the ground as in this case that the importer had violated the condition of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act.
The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act
M/S. Mohan Meakin Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 December, 1999
A reference may beneficially be made to a decision of this Court reported in Mohan Meakins Ltd. v. CCE, Kochi wherein it has been observed in Para 6.... "Therefore there is a mandatory requirement on the adjudicating officer before permitting the redemption of goods, firstly, to assess the market value of the goods and then to levy any duty or charge payable on such goods apart from the redemption fine that he intends to levy under Sub-section (1) of the section." In this view of the matter the objection raised by the Centre that Section 28 of the Customs Act would be attracted is not sustainable.
Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
1