1997 (7) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )]. In this appeal filed by M/s. Ruchika Electronics Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the importers and the imported goods to the benefit of Customs Notification No. 232/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983. There is no dispute in the proceedings that the goods imported were covered by the description given in the table annexed to that notification. The only dispute is that the importers h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty certificate was not a mere procedural requirement and that the exemption was not available for importing unlimited quantities of the inputs to be used at the concessional rate. He demanded the differential duty of Rs. 21,50,174.56, but did not impose any penalty and recommended the case for inquiry into the collusion aspect on the part of the departmental officers who assessed the bill of entry .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty. We find that the goods having been cleared by the proper authorities and without any specific allegation with justifiable grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation, this case can be decided on the question of limitation alone without going into other aspect. We find that in both the demand notices, there was no proposal for imposition of any penalty. There was also no detail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X