Spectacle lens exemption under export-unit notifications upheld for the earlier period; later demand and limitation remanded.

Spectacle lenses cleared into the domestic tariff area were considered under the exemption framework for export-oriented units, and the earlier Supreme Court view that lenses do not lose their character as spectacle lenses merely because they require further prescription finishing was applied to Notification No. 6/2006-CE. For the later regime under Notification No. 1/2011-CE, the changed notification structure and tariff position required separate examination, so the subsequent period could not be decided on the same basis. On limitation, the later notice could not be treated as wholly time-barred without determining whether part of the demand fell within the normal period. The demand up to 31 March 2011 was set aside, and the remaining demand was remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether spectacle lenses cleared into the domestic tariff area were entitled to exemption or concessional duty under the relevant notifications, and whether the demand could be sustained for the entire disputed period.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the proper description of the goods and the applicability of the exemption structure governing clearances from an export-oriented unit. The earlier exemption position had been settled by the Supreme Court, which held that lenses treated as semi-finished only because they required further finishing for individual prescription did not cease to answer the description of spectacle lenses. That reasoning was applied to the period governed by Notification No. 6/2006-CE. For the later regime under Notification No. 1/2011-CE, the effect of the changed notification framework and the tariff structure required fresh examination. On limitation, the second notice could not be treated as wholly time-barred without ascertaining which part of the demand, if any, was within the normal period.

Conclusion: The demand up to 31 March 2011 was set aside. The remaining demand, including the question of the applicability of the later notification and limitation for the subsequent period, was remanded for fresh decision.

---