LexSUNITADEVI SINGHAN1A HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 121 -'> SUNITADEVI SINGHAN1A HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR. A ' ' v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2008) NOVEMBER 17, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962 - s. 129(8)(2) - Powers of tribunal B - Scope of- Period of limitation u/s. 129(8)(2)-Applicabi/ity C of .:.. Import of equipments by charitable trust - Exemption from payment of custom duty - Grant of, on basis of Notification - Non-compliance of the conditions laid down in Notification - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty by Custom Authorities - Upheld by tribunal - Application for rectification of quantum of redemption fine and penalty D allowed-Appeal before Supreme Court b.v Trust that tribunal did not consider the fact that Trust had complied with the conditions laid down in the Notification - Withdrawal of appeal - Application for rectification of mistake - Dismissal of, by tribunal holding that application time barred - Upheld by E High Court - On appeal held: Tribunal has inherent power to recall its own order if sufficient cause is shown therefor - Omission to notice the facts involved in the appeal by tribunal is violative of principles of natural justice - Records of the . judges are considered to be final ~ When certain questions F are raised before the court of law or tribunal but not considered by it, and when it is brought to its notice, only the appropriate authority is to consider the said questions - . Period of limitation u/s.129(8)(2) is required to be observed but is not attracted in the instantcase-.Tribunal was required G to consider the application filed by appellant which was filed within a reasonable time - It did not consider the matter on ·merit - Thus, matter remitted back to tribunal for consideration afresh - Notification 64188 Gus dated 1.3.1988 . 121 H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Principles of r-. natural justice. Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors 1980 (Suppl) SCC 420; Sangham Tape B Co. v. Hans Raj 2005 (9) SCC 331; Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and Ors. 2008 (8) SCALE 242 and Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Madhukar Nowlakha and Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 699, referred to. c D Case Law Reference: 1980 (Suppl) SCC 420 Referred to. 2005 (9) SCC 331 Referred to. 2008 (8) SCALE 242 2006 (3) sec 699 Referred to. Referred to. Para 22 Para 23 Para 24 Para 25 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2008 of the E High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 76 of 2008. F G S. Ganesh, Tarun Gulati, Neil Hildreth, Tushar Jarwal and Praveen Kumar for the fl.ppellants. R.K. Abichandani, Krishna Kumar, SanjeevBhardwaj, B.V. Balaram Das and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and dis- satisfied with an order dated 18.1.2008 passed by a Division H Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay dismissing • SUNITADEVI SINGHANIA HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR. 123 v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - , the writ petition filed by the appellants herein on the ground that A it was not a fit case to exercise the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 4. Appellant No.1 which is a Charitable Tust runs a hospital B on no profit basis. It imported certain equipments invoking the Notification 64i88-Cus. dated 1.3.1988 issued by the Government of India in terms whereof exemption from payment of custom duty was granted in respect thereof subject to an obligation that it would reserve 10% of the beds for patients c from families having a income of less than Rs.500i- per month and provision for free treatment of at least 40% of the outdoor patients shall be made. 5. An investigation was carried out in the year 1999 as to D whether the appellant No.1 had fulfilled all such conditions or not. The matter went before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at.Mumbai. The appeal ofthe appellant before the Tribunal was heard along with the cases of Mis Miraj Medical Centre W. Hospital and Mis E Balabhai Nanavati Hospital. 6. By reason of a judgment and order dated 19.1.2006, the Tribunal having held that the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.