Common parlance test for 'similar goods' applies to exemption notifications; borrowed valuation-rule definitions cannot control eligibility.

Extended period of limitation was found unavailable where the assessee's returns disclosed the exemption claim and clearances, with no evidence of suppression or misdeclaration; only the normal period could apply. The meaning of "similar goods" in the exemption notification could not be taken mechanically from the Customs Valuation Rules, because a definition from another fiscal enactment cannot control a different notification unless expressly adopted. The correct approach was ordinary/common parlance and item-wise examination of each DTA clearance. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on product-wise eligibility, while the limitation finding remained in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand arising from DTA clearances under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31-3-2003. (ii) Whether the meaning of "similar goods" for the notification could be derived from the Customs Valuation Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand arising from DTA clearances under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31-3-2003.

Analysis: The returns filed by the assessee disclosed the availment of the exemption notification and the relevant clearances, enabling the department to verify eligibility. In the absence of evidence showing incomplete declarations, suppression, or misdeclaration, the necessary ingredients for invoking the extended period were not established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and, if the demand survives, it can survive only for the normal period.

Issue (ii): Whether the meaning of "similar goods" for the notification could be derived from the Customs Valuation Rules.

Analysis: The dispute required determination of eligibility of individual DTA clearances by examining whether each product was similar to the exported product. A definition from another enactment cannot be mechanically imported into an exemption notification issued under a different enactment. The proper approach is to apply the ordinary/common parlance meaning, with product-wise examination on facts.

Conclusion: The Customs Valuation Rules definition could not be adopted as the controlling test for the notification, and the matter required item-wise reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The order was set aside to the extent necessary and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on item-wise eligibility, while the finding on limitation went in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A definition borrowed from one fiscal enactment cannot be imported to interpret an exemption notification under another enactment; the ordinary/common parlance meaning must be applied unless the notification provides otherwise.

---