Customs exemption and limitation principles: unstated conditions cannot defeat relief, and extended limitation needs proof of suppression.

An express exemption under Notification No. 29/2010-Cus could not be denied by reading in unstated conditions, and the assessee was held entitled to special additional duty relief on the imported goods. Interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine imposed in relation to the customs tariff duty demand were set aside because the tariff levy was not accompanied by a specific statutory basis for those consequences, and the later amendment to section 3(12) was prospective. The extended limitation period also failed, as the record did not establish deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, particularly in light of the contested classification issue and the plea of revenue neutrality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from special additional duty under Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010; (ii) Whether interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine levied in relation to the customs tariff duty demand were sustainable; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from special additional duty under Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010.

Analysis: The exemption notification was held to grant relief from special additional duty on goods answering the described classification, without prescribing the additional conditions read into it by the adjudicating authority. The absence of a claimed exemption at the time of clearance did not bar the assessee from asserting it when the department reopened the assessment and demanded differential duty. The authority was bound to assess duty according to law and extend an available exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010, and the denial of exemption was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine levied in relation to the customs tariff duty demand were sustainable.

Analysis: Liability to interest and penalty was treated as substantive and not merely procedural. In the absence of a specific borrowing or charging provision in the Customs Tariff Act for those consequences in relation to the duty in question, the customs law provisions invoked for interest, confiscation and penalties could not be applied to the tariff levy. The later amendment to section 3(12) was noted as prospective, and the precedents relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished.

Conclusion: Interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not establish deliberate suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. The dispute on the meaning and legal effect of the description used in the import documents was contested, and the material did not justify attributing the degree of mens rea required for the longer limitation period. The assessee's case of revenue neutrality further negatived any inferred motive to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication confirming differential duty consequences could not survive judicial scrutiny, and the assessee succeeded on the substantial issues that were actually contested and decided.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption available under an express notification cannot be denied by importing unstated conditions, and interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine cannot be imposed for a tariff duty liability unless the statute specifically provides for such consequences.

---