JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

This batch of appeals deal with similar situation on facts and law, as has already been considered by another Division Bench in Annexure-3 judgment, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure-4 judgment; rejecting the connected Civil Appeals filed by the Revenue. Sri.P.R.Sreejith, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submits that he has two additional contentions on the very same set of facts. We have also heard Sri.P.A.Augustian, who appeared for the respondents.

2. The controversy revolves around the import of Multi Function Devices (MFDs) for use within the country. Admittedly in India there is no manufacture of MFDs and those imported are used equipments, which have a functional utility of at least five years. At the earlier instance when the controversy came before this Court, the specific allegations raised by the Revenue were with respect to contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992 read with the Foreign Trade Policy, Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 ['H&OW Rules' for brevity], e-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and En