LexJASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/
JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 31, 2007
[ASHOK BHAN, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND
B
;.,_
V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
,.) .
Customs Duty:
ExemptionNotificationNo. 64188-Cus. Dated 1.3.1988-Table__,_ c
Paras I and 2-Assessees granted Customs Duty Exemption
Certificates under para 2-CDEs withdrawn for violation of
conditions for grant of exemption-Three/four years thereafter
assessees claiming change in category from para 2 to para 1-HELD:
D
Effect of withdrawal of CD Es is that assessees are not entitled to
exemption under any clause of Table annexed to the Notification,
therefore, no question of change of category would arise-Besides,
change of category was sought after three/four years of withdrawal
of CD Es-It was clearly an afterthought in order to overcome
E
assessees 'failure to comply with conditions for grant of exemption.
Appellant in CA No. 7284 of 2005 obtained Customs Duty
Exemption Certificate for import of hospital equipments under
Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Dated 1.3.1988 for the period betweeh
-;!,
1988and1994. The appellant was categorized under para 2 of th~ F
Table annexed to the Notification. The said certificate was cancelle~
by communication dated 14.11.2000 on the ground that the appella~t
hospital failed to comply with the condition laid down in para 2 to
provide free treatment to the patients mentioned therein. After laps~
of3 years from the date of withdrawal of the exemption the appellant G
>-
made a representation for being categorized under para 1 of the
Table annexed to the Notification. The representation having been
rejected, the appellant filed a writ petition. The High Court declined
to grant the relief holding that the appellant having enjoyed the
733
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPbRfs
[26o1j ii S.C.R:
A benefit under para 2 for fifteen years could not claim change in the
rat~gHHzinon.
In the instant appeals; relying upon the case of Share Medical
Care'. it was contended for the appellants that they were entitled to
B claim change in categorization and the authority concerned erred in
holding otherwise.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appeliant in CA No. 7284 ot2005 is not entitled
C to the relief sought for. The appellant had given up its challenge to
the comm.Uliication dated 14th November, 2000 cancelling/
withdrawing the CDE.Cs issued to it in terms of para 2 of the Table
annexed to the Notification, for having violated the conditions laid
down for grant of exemption. The effect of the withdrawal of CDEC
D . is that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption under any of
the clauses of the Notification on or after 14th November, 2000 and,
~herefore, no question of change of its category would arise. Such a
change ~otild only be possible if the appellant had applied for change
otits categorization before the issuance of the communication of the
DGI:iS dated 14th November, 2000 withdrawing/cancelling the
E CDECs. Besides this, the change of categorization sought after a
lapse of three years of the withdrawal/cancellation of the CDECs
could not be entertained at the sweet will of the appellant. It is clearly
an after-thought in order to overcome the failure on the part of the
appellant to comply with the conditions laid down in para 2.
F
[Para 17 and 18] [739-A, B, C, D, E]
2. The appellant in the CA. no. 5054 of 2007, filed the
representation after a lapse of four years of the withdrawal/
cancellation of the CDECs, which could not have been entertained
y
G and the High Court has rightly upheld the order of rejection of the
-{
change of categorization. [Para 19] (739-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7284 of
2005.
H
1.
r20011 3 scR 44 =r20011 4 sec 573
.t
/
...l
..>
-r·
I
;:!
JASLOKHOSPITAL&RESEARCHCENTREv. UNION OF 735
INDIA [BHAN, J.]
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2004 of the High A
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2613Qf200~.
WITH
C.A. No. 5054of2007.
AnmJaitley, Gaurav Sharma, Pratibha Singh, Sumeet :BMtla, Surbhi B
Mehta (for Maninder Singh), V. Lakshmikurrmt:ln and Alok Yadav (fqr
M.P. Devanath) for the Appellant .
Amrendra Sharan, ASG., K. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Srivastava, Bin~
Tamta, C.V.S. Rao, Sushma Suri and B. Krishna Prasad for the c
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in special leave petition No. 11511 qf
2006.
D
2. This judgment shaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.