Unit container exemption for tea pouches survives outer bundling; extended limitation fails absent suppression or intent to evade duty.

Small tea pouches packed together in a larger carry bag remained eligible for the exemption for branded tea put up in unit containers not exceeding 100 grams, because each pouch was itself a saleable retail pack bearing the required particulars and the outer bundle was only for convenience of transport, storage and distribution. The aggregation did not convert the outer packing into the relevant unit container or amount to conversion from bulk to retail pack. On limitation, the extended period was unavailable because duty payment on larger packs and disclosure of sub-100 gram clearances supported bona fide belief, and the record did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether small tea pouches packed in a larger "bandha pack" ceased to be unit containers so as to lose the benefit of the exemption granted to tea put up in unit containers of content not exceeding 100 grams under the notification; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether small tea pouches packed in a larger "bandha pack" ceased to be unit containers so as to lose the benefit of the exemption granted to tea put up in unit containers of content not exceeding 100 grams under the notification.

Analysis: The exemption was meant for branded tea packed in unit containers not exceeding 100 grams. The smaller pouches carried the required particulars such as weight, brand name and MRP, and were themselves the saleable retail packs. Packing several such pouches together in a larger carry bag for convenience of transport, storage and distribution did not change the character of the individual pouches or convert the larger bundle into the relevant unit container for denial of exemption. The process was not one of conversion from bulk to retail pack, and the larger outer packing was not shown to be the container intended for sale as such.

Conclusion: The small pouches remained eligible for the exemption and the revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The respondent had been paying duty on packages exceeding 100 grams and had disclosed the clearance of tea packs below 100 grams. On the record, there was a bona fide belief regarding eligibility to exemption, and the material did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such ingredients, the extended period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The order granting exemption to the tea pouches and rejecting the duty demand on limitation was upheld, and the revenue appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where individual retail pouches satisfy the conditions of an exemption notification, their aggregation in a larger outer pack for convenience does not by itself destroy the exemption, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent suppression or intent to evade duty.

---