2015 (8) TMI 814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;   The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of customs duty of Rs. 15,35,846/- is confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No.64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 in respect of medical equipment imported by the appellants.  The adjudicating authority  has imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. 3.     The brief facts of the ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the demand and imposed penalty. 4.    During the argument, the ld.counsel for the appellants  submitted that now the appellants are not claiming the benefit of Notification No.64/88.   Alternatively the appellants were claiming the benefit of Notification No.65/88-Cus before the adjudicating authority. As per the Notification No.65/88-Cus  the effective rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification No.65/88-Cus before the adjudicating authority.  This claim was not considered by the adjudicating authority.  As per the provisions of Notification No.65/88-Cus, the duty liability comes to Rs. 5,06,253/-.   In these circumstances, the appellants are directed to deposit Rs. 5.06,253/- with the jurisdictional Commissioner within a period of eight weeks.  The impu....