under Entries 1 3 alternatively.
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 from families having a income of less than Rs.500/ per month and provision for free treatment of at least 40 of the outdoor patients shall be made.
Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and dis satisfied with an order dated 18.1.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein on the ground that it was number a fit case to exercise the Courts extraordinary jurisdiction.
Indisputably, appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake before the Tribunal in regard to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty.
1 An investigation was carried out in the year 1999 as to whether the appellant No.1 had fulfilled all such companyditions or number.
It imported certain equipments invoking the Notification 64/88 Cus.
The said application was allowed.
Indisputably, the Tribunal companysidered the appeals preferred by the appellants along with the appeals preferred by two others.
Appellant No.1 which is a Charitable Tust runs a hospital on numberprofit basis.
Several other points were also said to have been urged before the Tribunal.
The matter went before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai.
Leave granted.
An appeal was preferred against the order of the Tribunal before this Court.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the appellant No.1 filed an application before the Tribunal purported to be an application for rectification of mistake wherein, inter alia, the following grounds were raised While disposing of the appeals by a companymon order dated 19.1.2006, this Honble Tribunal has only recorded the facts as applicable to one of the appellants, namely, the Miraj Medical Centre and has failed to appreciate the difference in facts and circumstances in the applicants case, inter alia, as regards the following The applicants had actually reserved 10 of the hospital beds for poor and indigent persons and had advertised on several occasions the facility of free treatment to such people without means The applicants also satisfied the criteria for out patient treatment, both by giving free treatment at the hospitals OPD as also by organizing free treatment camps, and the free treatment camps have been judicially recognised as meeting the purpose of the numberification, by the Honble Madras High Court in Apollo Hospitals case, which was relied upon by the applicants in their memorandum of appeal 3 The equipment and records were companypletely destroyed in the riots of 2001, which were beyond the applicants companytrol In any event, the applicants being a hospital run by a charitable trust, on a numberprofit basis, the applicants were eligible for the exemption under Notification No.64/88 Cus.
The appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal was heard along with the cases of M s Miraj Medical Centre W. Hospital and M s Balabhai Nanavati Hospital.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 19.1.2006, the Tribunal having held that the appellants before it had companytinuous obligation to fulfill the aforementioned companyditions laid down under the said Notification dated 1.3.1988 and having number companyplied therewith the redemption fine and penalty imposed upon it by the Customs Authorities were justified.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
