SHARE MEDICAL CARE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHARE MEDICAL CARE 
.... 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: 
Charitable Hospital-Importing hospital equipments-Claiming benefit 
C under para 3 of the Table of exemption Notification No. 64188-Cus dated 
March l,l988-Refusal on ground that hospital itself had sought and was 
granted benefit of para 2, and since the benefit was withdrawn on non-
fulfilment of obligation under para 2, it cannot claim benefit under para 3-
Held, authori1ies would reconsider case of hospital as to exemption under 
D para 3 strictly in accordance with law on its own merits-Notification No. 
64188-Cus dated March 1, 1988. 
The appellant, a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh 
(Telengana Area) Public Societies Act, 1350-Fasli and being a charitable 
hospital imported certain medical equipment in the year 1992-93 and applied 
E for the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated March 1,1988, 
under para 2 of the Table. The benefit was granted. Since the Society was 
also entitled to exemption under para 3 of the table, an application was made 
to that effect. The application was rejected with the observation that since 
request was made for exemption under para 2 earlier which was grante~, it 
was not open to the Society to apply for exemption under para 3 of the table. 
F The appellant challenged the order in the High Court, which dismissed the 
writ petition. 
In the appeal filed by the Society, it was contended for the respondent 
that the appellant never objected to categorization of the Hospital under para 
G 2 of the table of the exemption notification and when the said exemption benefits 
were withdrawn for non-fulfilment of free treatment obligations, the appellant 
represented its case as an afterthought to category under para 3. 
On the question: whether the appellant could claim exemption under 
para 3 of the table of the exemption Notification and non consideration of the 
H 
44 
( 
SHARE MEDICAL CARE v. U.0.1. 
45 
said application was in consonance with law. 
A 
-·\ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular 
notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from 
claiming such benefit at a later stage. In the instant case, the ground which B 
weighed with the authority concerned for non-considering the prayer of the 
appellant was that earlier, exemption was sought under category 2 of exemption 
notification, not under category 3 and exemption under category 2 was 
withdrawn. This is hardly a ground sustainable in law. On the contrary, well 
settled law is that in case the applicant is entitled to benefit under two different c 
Notifications or under two different Heads, he can claim more benefit and it 
is the duty of the authorities·to grant such benefits if the applicant is otherwise 
entitled to such benefit. Therefore, non-consideration on the part of the 
' 
authority concerned to the prayer of the appellant in claiming exemption under 
category 3 of the notification is illegal and improper. (Paras 16-17) (50-0-G( 
D 
Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals, (1997) 
11 SCC 318; H.C.l. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, (2001) 130 
E.L.T. 405 (SC); Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 
Bombay, (2002] 7 SCC 145 : JT (2002) 6 SC 547 and Kera/a State 
Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income 
Tax, (1998) 5 SCC 48: JT (1998) 4 SC 145, relied on. 
E 
1.2. The decision in Mediwel/ Hospital* would not take away the right 
of the appellant to claim benefit under para 3 of the Table of exemption 
notification. If the appellant is not entitled to exemption under para 2, it cannot 
make grievance against denial of exemption. But if it is otherwise entitled to F 
such benefit under para 3, it cannot be denied either. (Para 21) (52-A-B( 
) 
Mediwel/ Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors., 
(1997] 1 SCC 759: JT (1997) I SC 270, referred to. 
1.3. The respondent-authorities are directed to re-consider the case of G 
the appeliant as to exemption in category 3 of the exemption notification 
strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits and without being inhibited 
-\ 
by the observations made in the judgment. (Para 22] (52-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 919 of2007. 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.