Exemption notifications cannot be expanded by interpretation; disclosure in returns defeats suppression for extended-period demands.

An exemption notification cannot be read more strictly than its text: where Notification No. 30/2004 required only that credit on inputs or capital goods had not been taken, the absence of duty on the inputs themselves could not be added as a further condition, so exemption was available at least prima facie. For the pre-09.07.2004 period, disclosure of denierage in RT-12 returns negatived suppression of facts, and the revenue's failure to verify the disclosed particulars weakened the basis for invoking the extended period. The appellant therefore showed a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit, and recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 in respect of yarn subjected to further processing for manufacture of twines, and (ii) whether the extended period could be invoked for the period prior to 09.07.2004 on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 in respect of yarn subjected to further processing for manufacture of twines.

Analysis: The notification required only that credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods should not have been taken. It did not require that the inputs must themselves have suffered duty. A condition not found in the notification could not be introduced by interpretation. On the appellant's showing, the exemption was therefore available at least prima facie.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period could be invoked for the period prior to 09.07.2004 on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellant had disclosed denierage in RT-12 returns. Once such disclosure was made, it could not be said that there was suppression of the material fact relevant to classification and duty liability. The burden lay on the revenue to ascertain the exact denierage, and the failure to do so over a long period weakened the allegation of suppression.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant established a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit, and recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A condition not contained in an exemption notification cannot be read into it, and disclosure of relevant particulars in statutory returns negates an allegation of suppression for invoking the extended period.

---