Time-barred duty demand and penalty cannot stand where exemption notification interpretation was genuinely unclear.

A time-barred duty demand could not be sustained or enforced as a voluntary payment once limitation had been found to bar recovery, and the demand was set aside. Penalty was also not justified because the dispute arose from genuine confusion over the interpretation of Notification No. 105/80, and the absence of a valid enforceable demand further undermined penalty. The demand and penalty were therefore annulled, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation and could be enforced as a voluntary payment; (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable in view of the confusion regarding interpretation of the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation and could be enforced as a voluntary payment.

Analysis: The demand had been held time-barred. Once the demand was found barred by limitation, there was no basis in law to require the assessee to pay the duty voluntarily in the manner suggested in the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The demand was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable in view of the confusion regarding interpretation of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The record reflected confusion in the interpretation of Notification No. 105/80. Coupled with the finding that the demand itself was time-barred, the circumstances did not justify imposition of penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the duty demand as well as the penalty were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand found to be time-barred cannot be sustained, and penalty is not warranted where the dispute arises from genuine confusion in the interpretation of the relevant notification.

---