Appellant liable for 4% SAD but extended period demand rejected due to no suppression of facts

CESTAT Bangalore upheld appellant's liability to pay 4% SAD under amended provisions but rejected extended period invocation due to absence of suppression of facts. The appellant had self-assessed duties but failed to claim proper exemptions available under relevant notifications. Court found no material misrepresentation warranting reopening past assessments beyond normal limitation period. Demand with interest confirmed only for normal period (February 2012 to October 2012) totaling Rs.3,95,676 already paid by appellant. Confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 114A set aside. Appeal partially allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for the benefit of specific notifications.
2. Misdeclaration leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of Notification No.20/2006 and Notification No.21/2012. The appellant imported goods under these notifications but later found out that the goods were omitted from the First Schedule, making them liable to pay additional duty of customs. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the notifications due to the specific goods being omitted from the First Schedule, as per the decision in a similar case. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted, and the appellant was deemed ineligible for the benefit during the disputed period.

2. The second issue concerns the misdeclaration leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The appellant disputed any misdeclaration, stating that the Bills of Entry clearly mentioned the relevant exemption notifications. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry, clearly showing the goods' description and duties, which were assessed and allowed by customs officers. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case emphasizing the distinction between inadvertent non-payment and deliberate default, stating that the burden of proving willful default lies with the Revenue. As there were no specific averments in the show-cause notice and no evidence of willful default on the appellant's part, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Tribunal upheld the demand for 4% SAD for the normal period but set aside the demand beyond the normal period due to lack of evidence of willful misdeclaration.

3. The Tribunal confirmed the demand for the normal period and set aside the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, following a previous decision. The appellant had paid the entire duty amount for the normal period, leading to the modification of the impugned order and partial allowance of the appeal.

---