Concessional CVD and extended limitation turn on direct purchase, disclosure of facts, and absence of suppression.

Concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE required direct purchase from the manufacturer, so High Sea Sale transactions did not satisfy the mandatory condition and the concession was unavailable. The note also explains that where imports and exemption claims were disclosed at assessment, a later show cause notice beyond the normal period could not rely on the extended limitation under Section 28(4) in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression. Penalty under Section 114A was likewise unsustainable because it depended on a duty demand validly sustained on the extended period and on fraud-like conduct, which was not shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE.

Analysis: Eligibility under Clause 1C depended on satisfaction of the statutory condition of direct purchase from the manufacturer, as required by Rule 2A(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2006. The appellant had purchased the goods through High Sea Sale transactions, which severed the direct contractual nexus with the manufacturer. Exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and the condition attached to the concession could not be treated as a mere procedural formality. The nature of end-use for government construction did not cure the failure to meet the mandatory purchase condition.

Conclusion: The appellant was not eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The imports were made between March 2009 and September 2011, while the show cause notice was issued on 14.03.2014, beyond the normal limitation period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The record showed disclosure of the High Sea Sale basis, the relevant documents, and the exemption claim at the time of assessment. The dispute was one of interpretation of the notification and not one involving concealment of material facts. In the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression, the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114A depends on a duty demand validly sustained under Section 28(4) on account of wilful misstatement or suppression. Once the extended period was held inapplicable and the demand failed on limitation, the foundation for penalty disappeared. The case was also essentially interpretational, with full disclosure of primary facts, which did not justify mandatory equal penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the duty demand could not be sustained beyond limitation, and the consequential interest and penalty also fell with the demand, notwithstanding the finding that the concessional notification condition was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand founded on alleged misinterpretation of an exemption notification cannot be sustained under the extended limitation period in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts, especially where the primary transaction details were disclosed at assessment.

---