Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 93 - CESTAT BANGALOREClassification of imported goods - Micropore, Transpore and Tegaderm - whether eligible for exemption contained in notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 01/03/2002 as amended from time to time or not - contention of the appellants is that their products are rightfully eligible for the exemption contained in the notification under the description “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes”, whereas Department contends that there exists a product which suits the description “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” and the notification should not be read as per convenience. HELD THAT:- The department has established that a product named and known as “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” exists. The evidence of the same has been supplied as RUD to the appellants. Under such circumstances, the appellants contention that no product known as “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” exists and there should have been a comma (,) in between doesn’t hold water. When such products are sold and used as such, it cannot be inferred that the notification was wrongly worded and therefore, it is to be interpreted to mean Skin Barriers, Micropore Surgical Tapes is not acceptable. There is no ambiguity in the notification and there is no need to interpret the notification by supplying what is assumed to be missing in the notification. The impugned order is correct as far as it holds that the items imported by the appellants are not eligible for the exemption contained in the notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The appellants argue that another part of the notification mentions ‘bag closing clamps karaya seals paste or powder’ whereas no such products are available and therefore, it need to be understood that notification misses out on certain symbols like (,). We find that as the items described therein are not under discussion, we need not turn our attention to the same. Time Limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- The fact that the appellants are importing from a long period is not disputed. It is not the case of the department that all the consignments were cleared under self-assessment procedure. It is not the contention of the Revenue that the impugned products were not subjected to examination or assessment any time - the extended period is not invokable and penalties are not imposable. Appeal allowed in part.
|