2006 (11) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Unit manufacturing bulk drugs. They had imported certain office equipments since 1994-95, without payment of duty, in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9-2-1981 (as amended) and Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3-6-1997 and these equipments were rewarehoused and Rewarehousing Certific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the factory. Not satisfied with the above explanation of the appellants, the department issued a show-cause notice seeking to recover duty of Rs. 29,57,335/- from the appellants in respect of the above equipments, to confiscate the goods and to impose penalties. These proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner of Customs dropped the demand of duty but h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sions i.e., provisions for confiscation of the goods and for imposing penalty on the assessee, could not be invoked against him. After a perusal of the Larger Bench decision, we find that the issue in the instant case is squarely covered by it in favour of the appellants. It is also noticed that, in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. [1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)], the Hon ble S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X