B. P. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been tiled challenging the validity of the demand made by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Group-7 (DEEC Cell) dated 10th June, 1987 whereby the petitioners were directed to pay customs duly on pulp amounting to Rs. 8,22,610. 897- on the ground that the petitioners imported 44. 963 M. T. of Strawberry Pulp and the item and pulp according to the respondents did not conform in the list of items specified in Annexure -1 to Appendix -19 and that the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate benefit was wrongly extended to the petitioner with regard to the pulp since the same was not covered by the Notification No. 117/78-Cus. , dated 9-6-1978 as also all proceedings framed thereunder. ( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows : ( 3 ) THE petitioner company had been carrying on business as Merchant Exporter exporting various goods to foreign countries. On and from 22nd July, 1982 the petitioner company started carrying on business as merchant exporter under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme (referred to as DEEC ). Under the said DEEC scheme the petitioner company was entitled to import raw materials under valid Import Licence issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports without payment of any Customs Duty thereon upon the undertaking given by the petitioner to have the goods mentioned in the advance licence, manufactured and to export the said goods of the value mentioned in the said import licence within the time specified in the said licence or within the extended lime. ( 4 ) ON the application made by the petitioner company on 31st October, 1984, an advance licence bearing No. P/k/3039982/c/xx/93/d/84 dated 7th December, 1984 was issued by the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi enabling the petitioner to import as merchant exporter 8,23,530 OTS Cans A 2 1/2 size made from quality plates, 8,00,000 OTS Cans No. 1 tall size, 2,800 Kgs. Pectin Food Grade and 50 metric tons of Pulp Food Grade of the total C. I. F. value of Rs. 32,64,754/ -. Pectin Food Grade and 50 metric tons of Pulp Food Grade of the total C. I. F. value of Rs. 32,64,754/ -. Under the said licence the petitioner company was required to export 400 metric tons of Mango Juice, 200 metric tons of Pineapple Juice, 100 metric tons of Pineapple Slice/titbits, 200 metric tons of Pineapple Jam, 200 metric tons of Strawberry Jam and 200 metric tons of Cherry Jam of the total F. O. B. value of Rs. 88,43,0007- within a period of six months from the date of its clearance of the first consignment of import. The goods which the petitioner company were allowed to import duty free was also duly endorsed in part C of the DEEC Book No. 007999 (Cal) dated 20th December, 1984. Under the terms and conditions of the said Advance Licence the petitioner company had to give an undertaking in writing to pay the total customs duty which would become payable on the value of the goods imported by the petitioner company in the event the petitioner company failed to fulfil the conditions of the said advance licence and accordingly, the petitioner company executed an undertaking according to law for- Rs. 67,30,2467- dated 8th December, 1984 which has been recorded in the said advance licence. Immediately after the petitioner company received the said advance licence the petitioner company placed three orders to three different countries for importation of the goods mentioned in the said advance licence. The petitioner company imported 44,963 Kilos of Strawberry Pulp from Holland under Customs Challan No. IF 125 dated 19th March, 1985 which was duly entered in part D of DEEC Book by the Customs authorities. The petitioner company also imported 2,800 Kilos of Pectin (Food Grade) under Customs Challan No. IF 203 dated 22nd April, 1985 from West Germany and on 26th April, 1985 the petitioner company imported 7,50,000 No. i tall cans and 7,50,000 No. A 2*/2 OTS Cans from Taiwan under Customs Challan No. IF 260 dated 26th April, 1985. All the aforesaid goods imported have been duly endorsed by the Customs authorities in Part D of the DEEC Book as also in the advance licence. All the said goods were imported through the Calcutta Customs who allowed the clearance of the said goods under the aforesaid valid import licence issued under DEEC Scheme without payment of any Customs duty thereon. All the said goods were imported through the Calcutta Customs who allowed the clearance of the said goods under the aforesaid valid import licence issued under DEEC Scheme without payment of any Customs duty thereon. On the undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner company exported food stuff manufactured and prepared from the raw materials. It may be mentioned that there is a condition when in ease the petitioner fails to export the required quantity of goods as per scheme, the petitioner would have to pay the customs duty on the goods imported which was allowed to be imported without licence. ( 5 ) THE petitioner company thereafter had Strawberry Jam manufactured out of Strawberry Pulp imported by the petitioner company through authorised manufacturers. The petitioner company also had the other products namely Pineapple Juice, Mango Juice and Pineapple Titbits manufactured through authorised manufacturers. On diverse dates between 31st March, 1985 and 30th December, 1985 the petitioner company duly fulfilled the export obligation undertaken by the petitioner company under the said advance licence. The said exports were made through Calcutta, Haldia, Bombay and Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh Ports. The said exports were duly recorded by the Customs authorities in Part F of the DEEC Book No. 008000 (Cal.) dated 20th December, 1984. It also appears that the goods which were exported as mentioned above, were duly checked and attested by the Customs authorities on 28th April, 1986 and the balance of the export were checked and attested by the said authorities on 14th May, 1986. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had fulfilled its obligation by making the said exports. ( 6 ) IN order to get redemption of the written undertaking executed by the petitioner company, the petitioner company had to produce to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports a finalisation certificate to be issued by the Customs authorities as per the proforma. The petitioner company thereafter requested the customs authorities at Calcutta to issue the said finalisation certificate. The petitioner company thereafter requested the customs authorities at Calcutta to issue the said finalisation certificate. By a letter dated 10th June, 1986 the Assistant Collector of Customs, DEEC Cell informed the petitioner company for the first time that the quantity of resultant product exported by the petitioner company as recorded in Part F of the DEEC Book is not in accordance with the quantity as mentioned in Part E of the DEEC Book and asked the petitioner company to explain the discrepancy or to get the DEEC Book amended from the licensing authority. By the letter dated 16th June, 1986 the petitioner company furnished the informations and clarifications necessary in this behalf. Thereafter, by a letter dated 14th July, 1986 the Assistant Collector of Customs, DEEC Cell informed the petitioner company that on scrutiny it was fourd that the petitioner company imported various items including Strawberry Pulp and also made exports. By the said letter the Assistant Collector of Customs' stated that although the export obligation with reference to 'exempt Materials' and the value appear to have been fulfilled the export obligation with reference to description as specified in Part E of the DEEC Book had not been fulfilled and requested the petitioner company to take up the matter with the licensing authority to amend Part E of the DEEC Book with reference to actual shipment. Thereafter by a letter dated 14th August, 1986 the petitioner company wrote to the Export Commissioner, New Delhi setting out all facts with a request to amend the DEEC Book. On 1st January, 1987 the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports informed the petitioner company that the request for amendment as contained in the letter dated 15th December, 1986 had been duly complied with. The said amendment was also incorporated in the licence as also in the DEEC Book. By the letter dated 12th January, 1987 the petitioner company duly submitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, the said amended DEEC Book. By the letter dated 11th March, 1987 the Assistant Collector of Customs requested the petitioner company to furnish DEEC declaration for utilisation. The petitioner company duly complied with the said requisition contained in the letter dated 11th March, 1987. By the letter dated 11th March, 1987 the Assistant Collector of Customs requested the petitioner company to furnish DEEC declaration for utilisation. The petitioner company duly complied with the said requisition contained in the letter dated 11th March, 1987. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER all of a sudden on 15th June, 1987 the petitioner company received a letter dated 10th June, 1987 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, DEEC Cell whereby it was alleged that the pulp does not appear in the list of items specified in Annexure I to Appendix 19. By the said letter it has been alleged that DEEC benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner company in regard to pulp which is not covered by the Notification No. 117/78-Cus. , dated 9th June, 1978. On the basis of the said allegation the petitioner company was called upon to pay the duty of pulp amounting to Rs. 8,22,610. 89 p. within 15 days. The petitioner company was also called upon to pay. the interest at the rate of 18% on the said duty from the date of clearance of the said pulp imported on the basis of the import licence to the date on which the amount would be actually paid. The petitioner company by the letter dated 16th June, 1987 informed the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods were imported under DEEC scheme, the main purpose whereof was to promote exports and the petitioner company has duly fulfilled all the conditions imposed under the said scheme. This letter dated 10th June, 1987 making the aforesaid demand is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application. ( 8 ) NOTIFICATION No. 117/78-Cus. , dated 9th June, 1978 had been published in the Customs Tariff of India 1984-85 which is under Note 65 under the heading "imports against Advance Licences or Replenishment Licences". The said notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of exempting the goods in public interest specified in the First Schedule to the said notification and imported against advance licence issued under the Import (Control) Order, 1955 or against advance release order of canalising agency or reducing of the goods imported. The said notification inter alia provides that the materials imported are covered by the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate granted by the committee in the forms specified in the 2nd Schedule of the said notification in respect of value, quantity, description, quality or technical characteristics, all specified in Part C of the said certificate. In part C of the DEEC Book of the petitioner company, item 4 provides with the. pulp food grade in 50 M. T. ( 9 ) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner company had fulfilled all the conditions contained in Clauses A to E of the said notification. Clauses A to E of the said notification are as follows :-" (a) The materials imported are covered by a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the said Certificate) granted by the Committee in the form specified in the Second Schedule to this notification, in respect of value, quantity, description, quality or technical characteristics as specified in Part C of the said Certificate; (b) The importer at the time of clearance of the imported material makes - (i) a claim in writing to the Collector of Customs for such exemption and executes a bond before such authority as may be approved by the Central Government for complying with the conditions specified in this notification; (ii) a declaration before the Assistant Collector of Customs binding himself to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable but for the exemption, on the imported materials in respect of which the conditions specified in this notification have not been complied with; (c) The goods corresponding to the resultant products in respect of value, quantity, description, quality or technical characteristics, as specified in the said certificate are exported within the time specified therein, or such extended period as may be granted by the Committee; (d) The exempt materials shall be used for the purpose specified in this notification and in such factories as are specified in the said Certificate; (e) The exempt materials or any portion thereof shall not be sold or otherwise transferred to any other person, or utilized or permitted to be utilized or disposed of in any other manner, without the previous permission of the committee. " ( 10 ) ITEM 2 of the First Schedule to the said Exemption Notification provides "fruits - peel of melons or citrus fruit - fresh or preserved. " ( 10 ) ITEM 2 of the First Schedule to the said Exemption Notification provides "fruits - peel of melons or citrus fruit - fresh or preserved. " Column 3 of the First Schedule to the said Exemption Notification gives the heading number of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - 08. 01/13 or 20. 01/07. Under Chapter 8, Heading 08. 01/13, the description of the materials in terms of the said heading is as follows :-"fruits, melon peel, citrus fruit peel and nuts (shelled or not) fresh or dried, preserved by freezing (whether or not cooked, but not containing added sugar), provisionally preserved (for example, by sulphur dioxides gas, in brine, in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions), but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption. " ( 11 ) THE goods specified under Heading No. 20. 0. 1/07 is as follows :-"fruits preserved by freeing, containing added sugar, fruits, fruit-peel and parts of plants, preserved by sugar, jam, fruits jellies, marmalades, fruit puree and fruit pastes, being cooked preparations, vegetable and fruit juices, neither fermented nor containing alcohol; fruit or vegetables prepared or preserved by vinegar, acetic acid or otherwise. " ( 12 ) FROM the technical specification provided by Batewell Limited of U. K. from whom the petitioner company purchased Strawberry Pulp it would-be evident that Strawberry Pulp is nothing but Strawberry Puree/paste without sugar or alcohol. The said technical specification also gives description as to the method of preparation of Strawberry Pulp. The said technical specification further provides that the said Strawberry Pulp is not for direct consumption but to be used for manufacture of Jam etc. The question is whether the petitioner company is liable to pay the importation of Strawberry Pulp. The relevancy of the notification in question as in existence during the period of 1984-85 is relevant and for that purpose the same had been set out above. ( 13 ) THE petitioner's case is that Strawberry Pulp is wholly exempted from Customs duty or additional duly and the authorities concerned have rightly allowed exemption after importing the goods in question and making export of goods manufactured from those materials and that the same could not be re-opened at this stage. ( 13 ) THE petitioner's case is that Strawberry Pulp is wholly exempted from Customs duty or additional duly and the authorities concerned have rightly allowed exemption after importing the goods in question and making export of goods manufactured from those materials and that the same could not be re-opened at this stage. ( 14 ) WITH regard to the question raised by the respondents that the Strawberry Pulp was not included in the notification in question, the case of the petitioner is that - (a) From the Customs Tariff it will appear that upto the year 1985-86, exemption was granted in respect of the goods which came only under Item 2 of the heading of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 namely 08. 01. 13 and 20. 01. 07. In the said two headings the goods were described in a compact way and in general terms and no name of any particular fruit appeared. (b) In 1986-87 it will appear that the First Schedule to the exemption Notification refers to Chapter 8 or Chapter 20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. From 1986-87 the heading of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has been changed and specific items of each fruit has been described. The word pulp however has not been mentioned. It appears that in that context in order to avoid any possible controversy Notification No. 461/86-Cus. , dated 13th November, 1986 was issued by the Central Government, dealing specifically with Respoerry Pulp, Strawberry Pulp and Cherry Pulp. It was nothing but a mere clarificatory one. It does not throw any light excepting to clarify the matter and to put the matter beyond all controversy. (c) As a matter of fact in order to avoid all controversy and confusion Notification No. 44/87-Cus. , dated 19th February, 1987 superseded Notification No. 117/78-Cus. , dated 9th June, 1978. This new Notification does not have any schedule and it exempts all goods which is specified in Part 'c' of Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate and which is eligible for exemption under the said Notification. ( 15 ) IT was also submitted that the validity of the importation for the purpose of exemption had to be judged only on the notification prevailing at the time of importation for an early period or for the purpose of a later period. ( 15 ) IT was also submitted that the validity of the importation for the purpose of exemption had to be judged only on the notification prevailing at the time of importation for an early period or for the purpose of a later period. The said demand on the basis of the review made by the respondents was also challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel. The claim of the petitioner for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel is two fold which are as follows :- (a) By issuing the Advance Licence under DEEC Scheme wherein "pulp Food Grade" has been specifically entered, the respondents made representation to the petitioner company that in the event the petitioner company fulfils all the conditions contained in the said Advance Licence no Customs Duty and/or Additional Duty would be levied on the imported goods namely Strawberry Pulp which was required by the petitioner company for the purposes of manufacturing Strawberry Jam. Acting upon the said representation and believing the same to be true, the petitioner company in fact imported the said raw materials, including pulp and duly manufactured Strawberry Jam with the said imported material and exported the said Strawberry Jam and other products required to be exported by the petitioner company under the said Advance Licence and DEEC Scheme within the time allowed by the respondents and the respondent duly accepted the said performance of the petitioner company. The petitioner company also has fulfilled all the conditions of the Advance Licence and the DEEC Scheme. In view of the aforesaid the respondents are now estopped from denying the benefit under the said Advance Licence issued under the DEEC Scheme and can not contend that Strawberry Pulp does not come under the Notification No. 117/78-Cus. , dated 9th June, 1978 and they are now estopped from levying any Customs Duty and/or additional duly on Strawberry Pulp imported by the petitioner company under the said Advance Licence. , dated 9th June, 1978 and they are now estopped from levying any Customs Duty and/or additional duly on Strawberry Pulp imported by the petitioner company under the said Advance Licence. (b) The second ground on account of promissory estoppel is based on the fact that if the respondents would not have made the aforesaid representation by issuing the advance licence under DEEC Scheme the petitioner company would have got the benefit of duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act read with Rules framed thereunder and in that event the Customs Duly which the petitioner would have required to pay would have been refunded to the petitioner on exports being made by the petitioner. Because of the aforesaid representation the petitioner company instead of obtaining a licence under Open General Licence Scheme obtained the advance licence under DEEC Scheme and thereby has been deprived of the said duly drawback benefit. In view of the aforesaid the respondents are now estopped from denying the benefit under the advance licence by contending that 'pulp' does not come under Notification No. 1. 17/78-Cus. , dated 9th June, 1978. ( 16 ) IN support of this principle the Id. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampal Sugar Mill Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Private Ltd. , and in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and Ors. It was further submitted that in any event no customs duty could be levied or imposed upon the petitioner at this stage on the following grounds : (1) Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present application inter alia provides that when any duly has not been levied the proper officer may within six months from the relevant dale serve a notice on the person chargeable with the demand which has not been levied requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amounts specified in the notice. Admittedly the proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act has no application and there is no allegation to that effect either. Admittedly the proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act has no application and there is no allegation to that effect either. (2) It was submitted that before any demand can be raised, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue a show cause notice. ( 17 ) IN the instant case no show cause notice was issued showing cause why the said demand should not be raised. In this case, the respondents against the run of the play had directed the petitioner to pay the aforesaid demand without giving the petitioner any opportunity to file objection and/or to make representation. ( 18 ) THE case of the respondents is as follows :- ( 19 ) IN terms of the Notification No. 117/78 dated 9-6-1978 only those goods specified in the schedule to the said notification would be exempted from the whole of the duty of customs and the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon as would appear from Annexure 1 to Appendix 19. From the serial No. 2 of the said Annexure, it would be clear that there is no description of goods by the name of 'strawberry Pulp' and therefore the subject goods which are fruit cooked/preserved are not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the DEEC Scheme. ( 20 ) THE fact of non-inclusion of Strawberry Pulp in the said Notification No. 117/78-Cus. would be amply borne out from a subsequent notification bearing No. 461/86-Cus. , dated 30-11-1986 where front it would appear that Strawberry Pulp was exempted from the payment of the whole of the customs duty or additional duty for the first time by the said notification dated 30-11-1986. Therefore, the import of the subject goods prior to the issuance of the notification dated 30-11-1986 can by no stretch of imagination be allowed to enjoy the benefit of duty exemption. ( 21 ) IN this connection, on behalf of the respondents reference was made to a subsequent Notification bearing No. 461/86-Cus. , dated 30-11-1986 wherein Strawberry Pulp was exempted from payment of whole of customs duty or additional duty. ( 21 ) IN this connection, on behalf of the respondents reference was made to a subsequent Notification bearing No. 461/86-Cus. , dated 30-11-1986 wherein Strawberry Pulp was exempted from payment of whole of customs duty or additional duty. It was further staled that on and from 30-11-1986 Strawberry Pulp and other pulp had been granted exemption from payment of import duty on the strength of the notification which was issued by the Central Government under Section 25 of the Customs Act and it makes clear that prior to that Strawberry Pulp was not exempted from payment of import duty. It was further submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in this case and that there can not be any promise which is contrary to law. It was further submitted that no promissory estoppel applied where the goods have been released earlier which were not covered by the licence and were released due to the error on the part of the officers. It was submitted that such an error did not constitute any representation. It was further submitted that the declaration filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector of Customs was binding upon them for payment of money or demand. ( 22 ) THE admitted fact of the case is that at the time of importation of the goods in question both the parties namely the petitioner and the respondents accepted the position that the goods in question which were imported on the strength of the import licence, were fully covered under the relevant notification and the petitioner was entitled to get exemption from payment of import duties, if any, products of the goods in question after manufacturing and processing were re-exported and the only condition is that the petitioner was required to comply with that in case the petitioner fails to re-export the goods in question. After preparing the end-products the petitioner had to pay the entire amount of import duty which was originally leviable upon the goods in question and for that purpose the petitioner had given a written undertaking and that the matter of fact the petitioner had complied with the petitioner's obligation under the said scheme by re-exporting the goods in question. Customs Tariff Item in question, namely Chapter VIII, Heading No. 08,01/13 and Heading No. 20. Customs Tariff Item in question, namely Chapter VIII, Heading No. 08,01/13 and Heading No. 20. 01/07 include fruits preserved by freezing containing added sugar; fruits, fruit-peel and parts of plants, fresh or dried, preserved by freezing (whether or not cooked but not containing added sugar), provisionally preserved. ( 23 ) THE petitioner relied on technical specification provided by Batewell Limited of U. K. from whom the petitioner company purchased Strawberry Pulp. It would be evident that Strawberry Pulp is nothing but strawberry fruit puree/paste without sugar or alcohol. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 'pulp' means the soft succulent part of fruit, the soft pith of various stems, a soft mass of vegetable matter from which most of the water has been extracted by pressure, a cellulosic material prepared by chemical or mechanical means chiefly from wood but also from rags and other materials and used in making paper and cellulose products. According to the Dictionary meaning, the meaning of pulp is very wide. Of course for interpreting the commercial commodity the Court should not exclusively rely upon the Dictionary meaning 'puree'. The question is whether the commodity in question, Strawberry Pulp was in fact, fruit preserved by freezing that could -not be decided by this Court on the basis of the materials on record. The goods in question was described in the bill of entry and from which it clearly indicates the description of the goods as Strawberry Pulp falling under Customs Tariff Item No. 08. 01/13. It was also stated that in the bill of entry the goods were imported under the said DEEC Scheme and that on examination the goods were allowed to be imported after observing the customs formalities which were duly specified in the DEEC Book. Before the Customs Authority the petitioner had given an undertaking that "i/we undertake to pay on demand an amount to the duty leviable in respect of the goods. covered by the bill of entry in case the condition specified under notification dated 9-6-1978 are not complied With by me/us. " The petitioner gave this undertaking in writing that the goods which have been imported would be re-exported in terms of the said notification and on that basis no Customs duty was leviable. covered by the bill of entry in case the condition specified under notification dated 9-6-1978 are not complied With by me/us. " The petitioner gave this undertaking in writing that the goods which have been imported would be re-exported in terms of the said notification and on that basis no Customs duty was leviable. The only condition under which the customs duly could be leviable was the failure on the part of the petitioner to export the goods in terms of the said notification. It may be mentioned that the goods were imported in March, 1985 and after manufacturing of the goods in terms of the said notification, the exports were made in the year 1986. It was submitted that the goods originally brought by the petitioner in March, 1985 were not eligible for exemption from payment of customs duty and that according to the respondents, the goods were allowed to be imported without payment of customs duty on the ground that there was an error on the part of (he respondents. The said goods were imported and after importation the end-products were manufactured under the supervision and control of the Respondents and thereafter the same were exported in accordance with the said scheme. Section 28 of the Customs Act provides the provision of notice for payment of duties not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded. The said section provides that "when any duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded, the customs authority may in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year and in any other case within six months from the relevant dates, the said provision is chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or which has been so short levied or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. " ( 24 ) IN the instant case, the respondents had clearly admitted that there was an error on the part of the respondents in not realising the customs duty at the time of importation. " ( 24 ) IN the instant case, the respondents had clearly admitted that there was an error on the part of the respondents in not realising the customs duty at the time of importation. No allegation has been made in the show cause notice and/or in the affidavit-in-opposition and even at the time of hearing of the application that there had been any collusion or wilful mistake or suppression of fact. In this case, the import is made in March, 1984 and the end-products were exported by December, 1985 and in June, 1987 a demand has been made without issuing any show cause notice. On the basis of the materials on records I have no hesitation in holding that the demand, if any, was barred by limitation. In view of the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act which clearly provides that the period of limitation is depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. No case has been made that the period of limitation in this case was five years because of any wilful mistake or suppression of fact by the petitioner. On the contrary, it is admitted by the respondents that there was an error on the part of the respondents. Accordingly the said notice demanding the payment of duty is barred by limitation, even assuming the same was a notice of show cause. Further, the said notice was not in the form of a show cause notice but it was a demand notice. It is not necessary to make any confusion of such matter, inasmuch as the said notice was given as a show cause notice. The show casue notice and/or demand notice both were issued beyond the period of limitation and as such, when the proceeding was barred by limitation, in that event, it is not necessary, to make any further finding on aspect of the matter. ( 25 ) IN view of the facts that by allowing the goods to be exported duty free under the said scheme the petitioner was prevented from availing the benefit of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act. Section 75 of the said Act provides the provision of drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. Section 75 of the said Act provides the provision of drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. So this is a case if it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to get any exemption on account of import duties on importation of the goods under the said scheme, the petitioner was entitled to as a matter of right gel back the import duty paid by the petitioner after the goods are exported after manufacturing of the goods from the imported materials. So the representation made by the respondents that the goods had been imported by the petitioner under the said scheme, the petitioner was prevented from availing of the benefit of Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act. In cither way the petitioner was entitled to get benefit and when the respondents had represented that the petitioner was entitled to gel exemption under the said scheme, if the petitioner had exported the goods and after the goods had been exported, the respondents could not ask the petitioner for payment of duty on any ground whatsoever, inasmuch as, the petitioner would have got it back after its export in view of the provisions of Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act. So from any point of view, the respondents did not suffer and the petitioner could not be made to suffer because of the conduct of the respondents. So it is a clear case, where in cither way, the petitioner was entitled to get benefit on account of import duly and under such circumstances, it would be a case of gross injustice and punishing an innocent importer when the law provided such importer and exporters benefit under a clear statutory provision. ( 26 ) THE principle of promissory estoppel can not be pleaded against a wrong doer and a person who had violated the provision of law. The respondents had contended that the pulp in question which was brought for consumption was dutiable on the contrary the petitioner's case was that alter pulp was brought and after preparing the jam and jelly, the same was exported out of India. The respondents had contended that the pulp in question which was brought for consumption was dutiable on the contrary the petitioner's case was that alter pulp was brought and after preparing the jam and jelly, the same was exported out of India. The question is whether the goods of such nature which could be said to have been good and fit for consumption, is a matter which could only be decided at the time of entry of goods by experts on chemical analysis or examination but at this stage this could not be decided on papers when the goods have been imported in March, 1985 and exported in December, 1985. 1 do not know how an analysis could be made at this stage to find out what was the nature of the goods at the time of its entry the respondents had clearly accepted the description of the goods did conform with the items of export under the said scheme and for the purpose of re-exporting of end-products, an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner and on the basis of the said undertaking, the petitioner had re-exported the goods in question. In my view, it is too late in the day to rise from the slumber and make a demand, inasmuch as, one thing is clear that in the instant ease, the petitioner had manufactured the end-products and the end-products had been re-exported to foreign countries. ( 27 ) UNDER such circumstances, in my view, the principle of promissory estoppel would be applicable with all its force. In my view, the respondents can not take advantage of their own mistake by punishing an innocent importer. It was the duty on the part of the respondents to detect the matter at the time of its entry when the goods were before them and they can make an analysis of the goods to find out the nature of the goods in question. I make it clear that on the basis of the materials on record, it is difficult on the part of this Court to make any pronouncement whether the goods were conformed with the nature of the goods that was brought by the petitioner on the basis of the import licence. I make it clear that on the basis of the materials on record, it is difficult on the part of this Court to make any pronouncement whether the goods were conformed with the nature of the goods that was brought by the petitioner on the basis of the import licence. But one thing is clear that the respondents had admitted the fact that the goods conform with the required specification and it fall within the relevant items of the Customs Tariff Act and allowed the goods for clearance. After obtaining an undertaking by the petitioner, the petitioner had to re-export the end-products and that if the petitioner fails to re-export the end-products, the petitioner would pay the customs duty which would have been leviable at the time of entry. That undertaking could not be enforced and the period of limitation could not be accepted. The undertaking was limited to re-export and if the export has been made, in that event, the petitioner had no obligation to make any payment of customs duty, on the contrary, if the petitioner fails to make the export, in that event, the petitioner would have to pay the customs duty in respect of which the exemption was granted. In view of the terms and conditions of the said undertaking, the respondents had no jurisdiction to contain that the petitioner is liable to pay the customs duty on the basis of that undertaking. The undertaking was for something else and the petitioner had fulfilled the undertaking. ( 28 ) ACCORDINGLY, I hold that the notice of demand in question had been issued by the respondents without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. ( 29 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds. The notice of demand dated 10-6-1985 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Group-7, DEEC Cell, is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. As prayed for by Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondents, let the operation of this order be stayed for a period of a fortnight from date.