Customs exemption claims require proof of non-availment of Modvat credit; extended limitation needs clear suppression evidence.

An importer claiming exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. must satisfy the notification conditions, including non-availment of Modvat credit, even where the licence is transferred. The extended period of limitation is unavailable unless the department proves suppression or misdeclaration with supporting material. Penalty under Section 114A cannot be sustained against a person from whom no duty or interest is recoverable, so penalty fails where no corresponding duty demand is made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against MSA Exports when no duty had been demanded from it. (ii) Whether the importer, as transferee of an advance licence, was bound to establish non-availment of Modvat credit for claiming exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression or misdeclaration.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against MSA Exports when no duty had been demanded from it.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114A is attracted only against the person from whom the duty or interest becomes recoverable. Since no duty was demanded from MSA Exports, the statutory basis for imposing penalty on it was absent.

Conclusion: The penalty on MSA Exports was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the importer, as transferee of an advance licence, was bound to establish non-availment of Modvat credit for claiming exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression or misdeclaration.

Analysis: The exemption conditions attached to the notification had to be satisfied by the importer claiming the benefit, whether it was the original licensee or a transferee. The licensing authority's acceptance of declarations under the Handbook of Procedure did not preclude later departmental action, but the department still had to prove suppression or misdeclaration to justify the extended period. In the absence of material showing that credit had in fact been availed or that any deliberate suppression existed, the extended limitation was unavailable.

Conclusion: The demand of duty against Plastchem Industries could not be sustained, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the Commissioner was set aside and the appeal succeeded for both appellants, resulting in complete relief from the impugned duty and penalty demand.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption claimant must satisfy the notification conditions, but invocation of the extended period requires clear pleading and proof of suppression or misdeclaration; penalty under Section 114A cannot survive without a corresponding duty liability on the person penalised.

---