Customs exemption denied where goods did not fit the notification, while extended limitation failed absent suppression or misrepresentation.

Imported goods were not covered by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the product description did not clearly bring them within the exemption, and the punctuation argument was rejected in light of the earlier Tribunal view upheld by the Supreme Court. The duty demand was therefore sustained for the period otherwise admissible under law. For limitation and penalty, repeated departmental examination and acceptance of the consignments, including after self-assessment, meant suppression or misrepresentation was not established. The extended period could not be invoked and the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods 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 were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002.

Analysis: The exemption claim was examined in the light of the earlier Tribunal decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The contention based on a punctuation error in the notification was rejected, and the product description was held not to bring the goods within the notified exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption was held not available to the appellant.

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

Analysis: The imports had continued over the years with departmental examination and acceptance in certain consignments, including after self-assessment. On these facts, suppression or misrepresentation was not established for invocation of the extended period, and penalty could not be imposed.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained only for the normal period, while the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimed exemption will not be allowed where the goods do not clearly fall within the notification, but the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent suppression or misrepresentation when the department has repeatedly examined and accepted the imports.

---