Strict construction of exemption notifications denied customs relief for surgical tapes, while lack of suppression barred extended limitation and penalties.

Exemption notifications in fiscal law must be construed strictly according to their plain wording, and courts cannot supply omissions or adopt a broader purposive reading. On that approach, imported goods described as "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes" were held not to match the notification description, so exemption was denied. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the imports had been regularly assessed on the same description and suppression or misrepresentation was not established. Penalties were therefore not sustainable, while the duty demand survived for the normal period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods described as "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes" were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and penalty sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods described as "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes" were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002.

Analysis: The exemption notification was construed on its plain language. It was held that a court cannot supply an alleged omission or rewrite the notification on the basis of assumed intention. The goods imported by the appellants were found not to match the description in the notification, and the existence of products known as "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes" was accepted. The claim for exemption was therefore examined strictly on the wording of the notification and not on a broader or purposive reading.

Conclusion: The exemption was held not to be available, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and penalty sustained.

Analysis: The imports had been made over the years and had been assessed after examination, including in the self-assessment regime, without earlier objection on the same description. On those facts, suppression or misrepresentation was not established so as to justify the extended period. Since the demand was held sustainable only for the normal period, the penalties were also not maintainable.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the penalties were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of setting aside the penalties, while the duty demand was sustained for the normal period and the exemption claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption notifications in fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their plain wording, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without proof of suppression or misrepresentation when the goods had been regularly assessed on the same description.

---