ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals filed by M/s. Tamilnadu Hospital Ltd. and M/s. East Coast Hospital Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.1988 is available to the medical equipments imported by them.
2. Shri N. Muthukumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants had imported medical equipments and claimed the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 64/88; that the said Notification requires the production of duty exemption certificate for availing the benefit of exemption from the Director General of Health Services (DGHS in short); that they had made the application before the DGHS in time for issue of the said certificate which has not so far been issued and their application is still pending before the DGHS; that in view of these facts, the Customs Authorities should not have disallowed the benefit of Notification since their petition for issuing of certificate is still pending before the DGHS. He, further, mentioned that the Appellants have filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Madras; that the High Court, by Order dated 8.6.2001, had directed that their application before the DGHS should be heard and orders passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of production of a copy of the Order; that thus the appeals filed by them may be kept pending; that since their petition is pending before DGHS, it cannot be concluded that the conditions set out in Notification No. 64/88-Cus have not been fulfilled.
3. Countering the arguments, Mrs. Bhagyadevi, learned SDR, submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus is available subject to the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the Notification; that as the Appellants have not fulfilled the conditions, they are not eligible for the exemption provided by the Notification; that in Appeal No. C/514/2001, M/s. Tamilnadu Hospital Ltd. have not submitted the installation certificate despite the repeated request; that the DGHS has disposed of the matter vide letter dated 8.8.2001 stating that all the pending application of M/s. Tamilnadu Hospital was disposed of as the institution is not found fulfilling the conditions.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides, Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.1988 exempts all equipments, apparatus and appliances (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 Director General of Health Services, as essential for use in any hospital specified in the table. The Notification also imposes certain conditions for availing the benefit thereof. It is the case of the Revenue that the conditions specified in the Notification have not been fulfilled by the Appellants. It is also not the case of the Appellants that they have fulfilled the conditions as they themselves are contending that their petition before DGHS for issuing the necessary certificate is pending. The imports of the equipments in all the matters were made in 1990 and 1993 and since then they have not produced the necessary certificates before the Customs Authorities. If the Hon’ble High Court had directed DGHS to consider their application and DGHS has not considered the same, the learned Advocate has not brought on record the subsequent action taken by them. On the other hand, Revenue has contended that the DGHS has disposed of the applications of M/s. Tamilnadu Hospital vide letter dated 8.8.2001 that is after the Order dated 8.6.2001 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune that conditions of a Notification are to be fulfilled for claiming its benefit as it is the foundation for availing the benefit of the Notification. The Supreme Court has also denied the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus in the case of C.C. (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre for not fulfilling the conditions of the Notification. We, therefore, reject all the appeals.