2022 (5) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Benefit 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.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002
- Invocation of extended period of limitation

Eligibility for Exemption:
The appeal revolved around whether the imported goods, specifically "Skin Barrier Microporus Surgical Tapes," qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002. The appellant argued that they had been importing these goods under the mentioned tariff heading and availing the exemption without objection until a subsequent investigation in 2011. The appellant contended that the product classification was consistent with past practices and relied on a favorable decision by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal. However, the Department sought to deny the exemption based on a different interpretation, leading to a dispute. The Tribunal examined the product description, past practices, and relevant case law to determine the eligibility for the exemption.

Interpretation of Notification:
The appellant claimed a punctuation error in the notification, impacting the interpretation and applicability of the exemption. They argued that the product description was accurate and consistent with previous imports, emphasizing a bona fide belief in eligibility due to past approvals. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that it lacked the authority to interpret the notification's intent or correct any errors, highlighting the Tribunal's role within statutory limitations. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a previous decision related to similar products to support its conclusion that the exemption was not applicable in this case.

Invocation of Extended Period:
Regarding the invocation of an extended period of limitation, the appellant demonstrated a history of imports with Department approval, suggesting no deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Tribunal acknowledged the consistent import practices and examination by the Department, concluding that the extended period could not be justified. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the limitation issue, setting aside any penalties imposed.

Final Decision:
After thorough analysis, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the duty demand for the normal period while overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was based on the findings related to the exemption eligibility and the invocation of the extended limitation period. The judgment was pronounced openly on 29.04.2022 by the Tribunal.