TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of limitation can be invoked. As the issue is common, all these appeals have been taken up together for decision. 3. Learned Counsels appearing for the appellants submit that they have been importing "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes - Leukopor" falling under Customs Tariff Heading 30059060 and have been availing the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002. The Department has been allowing the imports and exemption thereof without raising any objection. However, in the year 2011, DRI conducted investigation and show-cause notices were issued seeking to deny exemption notification and seeking to recover the differential duty. The same was confirmed by the impugned orders. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants though raised issue of jurisdiction of ADG, DRI to issue show-cause notice during the course of arguments but they submit that they are not pressing for the issue. 5. Learned Counsels submit that the issue is squarely covered in their favour by a decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2019 (370) ELT 1257 (Tri-Chennai). Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing judgments: - (a) Sirthai Superware India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2020 (371) ELT 324 (Tri) (b) Vesuvius India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2019 (370) ELT 1134 (Tri) (c) Northern Plastics - 1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC) (d) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jyoti Industries Ltd. - 2005 (188) ELT 88 (Tri) 8. He further submits that as the Tribunal itself expressed two different opinions on the eligibility of the notification benefit; the appellants cannot be alleged to have been mis-represented or suppressed the facts. He relies upon the following judgments- (a) Star Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2015 (327) ELT 238 (Tri) (b) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Star Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.- 2015 (329) ELT 50 (Bom) (c) Continental foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) (d) Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016 (344) ELT 578 (Tri) 9. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order and relied upon the order of 3M India Ltd. decided by the Bangalore Bench. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same. In the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur [(1975) 4 SCC 22], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Even if there is a casus omissus in a statute, the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it..." In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of Sankar Tea Co. Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong and Others [1985 (21) E.L.T. 679 (Guwahati)] also provides useful guidance. In the said case, the Hon'ble Court was dealing with the issue of rate of Central Excise duty chargeable on the tea produced in District of Dibrugarh in the State of Assam. Briefly stated, the Central Government by a notification dated 1-5-1970 divided the tea growing areas into Zones and fixed the rate of duty on tea produced in the said areas. At the relevant time, Dibrugarh was a sub-division in the District of Lakhimpur in Zone V. As per notification dated 22-9-1971, the Assam Government made the sub-division of Dibrugarh as a separate district with effect from 2-10-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clarify the position of 'plain meaning rule or clear and unambiguous rule' with respect of tax law. 'The plain meaning rule' suggests that when the language in the statute is plain and unambiguous, the Court has to read and understand the plain language as such and there is no scope for any interpretation. This salutary maxim flows from the phrase "cum in verbisnullaambiguitasest, non debetadmittivoluntatisquaestio". Following such maxim, the Courts sometimes have made strict interpretation subordinate to the plain meaning rule [Mangalore Chemicals case (Infra para 37).], though strict interpretation is used in the precise sense. To say that strict interpretation involves plain reading of the statute and to say that one has to utilize strict interpretation in the event of ambiguity is self-contradictory. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is correct as far as it holds that the items imported by the appellants are not eligible for the exemption contained in the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3- 2002. The appellants argue that another part of the notification mentions 'bag closing clamps karaya seals paste or powder' whereas no such products are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quipment subject to production of a certificate from DGHS to the effect that the imported goods are lifesaving medical equipment; he submitted that the appellants have produced such certificates and have a right to claim the same even though the same was not claimed at the time of filing bills of entry. We find that per contra the Learned Authorised Representative submits that the certificates from DGHS submitted by the appellant in support of their claim, are certificates which have been issued under Notification 208/81 and would have no relevance to the Notification 21/2002-Cus., Sl. No. 363 A and the claim has to be considered only as per the current notification as the requisite certification by DGHS under the current Notification is not produced. We find that the certificates are issued in 1990s and have no mention of the impugned imports. 26. The appellants have relied upon the decision of coordinate bench, at Chennai in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), stating that the Tribunal has gone into the imports of similar products and decided that the applicability of notification has been decided in appellants favour. Per contra, the Learned Authorised Represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussion above, the distinction between the impugned products and the items eligible for exemption has been clearly established. It was also established that products which can be described as "Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes" exist. Therefore, having considered the facts of the case, we find that the department could satisfactorily demonstrate the twin points that the impugned goods do not satisfy the description given in the Notification and that the products mentioned in the Notification exist in reality. We find that there is no ambiguity as far as the description of the items in the notification and that the impugned goods do not satisfy such description so as to be eligible for exemption. As the wordings of the notification give meaning which is not ambiguous, we find that the Apex Court's judgment in Dilip Kumar case (supra) is binding and needs to be followed. 27. We also find that Apex Court in the case of Srikumar Agencies Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000, decided on 27-11-2008 [2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.)] observed that : 5. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference b....