KAMINENI HOSPITALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Kamineni Hospitals Ltd. and Dr. K. Shashidhar, Managing Director, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -1988 is available in respect of equipments imported by them.

(2.) Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant had imported Mach Double Halogen Operating Lamp, CIBA. Corning 550 Express Random Access Chemistry Analyser and Screening system + cap -piereer fully 500 Express Random Automated Interpretative 5 Part Differential Blood Cell Counter with accessories and availed the exemption from payment of Import duty under Notification No. 64/88 -Cus.; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confiscated medical equipment and accessories with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 40, 140,223/ -, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty equivalent to amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh on Dr. K. Shashidhar, Managing Director, on the ground that the conditions specified in Para 2(a) and 2(b) of the Table annexed to Notification had not been complied with by the Appellants.

(3.) The learned Advocate, further, submitted that Para 2(a) requires that free treatment will be provided, on an average, to at least 40% of all outdoor patients; that as per clarification given by the Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad, all patients seen by the concerned hospital within the premises as out patients/outdoor patients and outside the premises conducted as camps, are considered as outpatients/outdoor patients; that thus the finding of the Commissioner that 'an outdoor patient is a patient who receives treatment for his ailment in the hospital and for which he is not required to be admitted' is contrary to the clarification given by the Indian Medical Association; that as such they have treated more than 40% outdoor patient free during 1995 -1997. He relied upon the decision in the case of Assembly of God Hospital and Research Centre, 2002 (143) E.L.T, 601 (T) = 2002 (50) RLT 957 (CEGAT) wherein the Tribunal has held that "The patients treated in the outdoor medical camps, are required to be taken into consideration for computing the average of 40% of the outdoor patients." Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, [2001 (133) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.)] = 2001 (46) RLT 249 (Mad.).