Per Gowri Shankar : The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5.16 lakhs and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has demanded the duty on the medical equipment imported by the applicant by claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 64/88, on the ground that the conditions subject to which the exemption is granted, relating to specified number of pre-treatment of inpatients and outpatients, have not been complied with.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the notice issued to it did not demand payment of duty and therefore there is no basis for the duty. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Forgings Vs. UOI 2002 (53) RLT 507 (SC)=2002 (146) ELT 241 in respect of the proposition that a notice must specifically mention the amount of duty demanded, and the basis for the demand. He however brings to our notice an order passed by a bench of court III in Mumbai of this Tribunal in which in respect of the same hospital, and a similarly worded notice, full deposit of the duty has been ordered.

4. The departmental representative contends that the inten