Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 765 - AT - CustomsBenefit of exemption under N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 on imported goods - Skin Barrier Microporus Surgical Tapes - incorrect understanding of the product name “Wafer” and held that they are not “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” - case of appellant is that there is a punctuation error in the notification giving rise to an interpretation that the exemption is not applicable in the impugned goods - invocation of extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra as being decided by the Bangalore Bench in the case of 3M INDIA LTD, SHRI KULVEEN SING BALI, SHRI M.S. SWAMINATHAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I [2020 (7) TMI 93 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. It has also been brought to our notice that the same has been upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, the decision of the Bangalore Bench has attained finality and further process by the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/S. SUTURES INDIA P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2019 (4) TMI 538 - CESTAT CHENNAI] cannot be relied upon. There are no error in the notification, if any, should have been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and got corrected. This Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot sit in judgment on interpretation of a notification or the purport of the notification. However, the Bench is not Writ Court to decide the property of the notification being creature of the statute. This Bench has no jurisdiction to interpret the intention of the notification. Time Limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants have successfully demonstrated that the imports have been taken place over the years and Department has been allowing the same after examination atleast in respect of few consignments even after the introduction of self-assessment regime. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants have suppressed or mis-represented any material fact so as to warrant the invocation of extended period. For this reason, it is found that impugned orders are not maintainable as far as the limitation is concerned. Accordingly, the penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants. The appeal is partly allowed confirming the demand of duty for the normal period and setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.
|