https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422505 Imported goods were not covered by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the product description did not clearly bring them within the exemption, and the punctuation argument was rejected in light of the earlier Tribunal view upheld by the Supreme Court. The duty demand was therefore sustained for the period otherwise admissible under law. For limitation and penalty, repeated departmental examination and acceptance of the consignments, including after self-assessment, meant suppression or misrepresentation was not established. The extended period could not be invoked and the penalty was deleted. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422505 Imported goods were not covered by Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the product description did not clearly bring them within the exemption, and the punctuation argument was rejected in light of the earlier Tribunal view upheld by the Supreme Court. The duty demand was therefore sustained for the period otherwise admissible under law. For limitation and penalty, repeated departmental examination and acceptance of the consignments, including after self-assessment, meant suppression or misrepresentation was not established. The extended period could not be invoked and the penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422505