TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant M/s. Sewing Systems Pvt. Ltd. earlier known as M/s. Hansel Textile Systems Pvt. Ltd. had imported garment accessories during the disputed period from 08.04.2011 to November 2012 claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No.50) read with Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No. 12). At the time of filing of Ex-bond Bill of Entry, it was alleged that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notifications, hence show-cause notices dated 05.06.2013 and 05.10.2013 was issued for the above disputed period. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand invoking the extended period of limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1962. The period of dispute in this case is April 2011 to March 2013 and the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 50) and Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No. 12), the relevant clause are reproduced below: Notification New Delhi, the 1st March, 2006 No. 20/ 2006-Customs 10 Phalguna, 1927 (Saka) G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of description specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling within the Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling within the Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from so much of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Table aforesaid: Provided that in respect of the goods specified in S. Nos. 2, 46, 70, 87 and 98,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es The Thirteenth Schedule [See section 78] In the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957,- (a) heading 1701 and all sub-headings and tariff items thereof and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted; (b) tariff item 1702 90 10 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted; (c) headings 5007, 5111, 5112, 5208, 5209, 5210, 5211, 5212, 5407, 5408, 5512, 5513, 5514, 5515, 5516, 5801, 5802, 5803, 5804, 5806, 5810, 5901, 5902, 5903, 5907, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6004, 6005 and 6006 and all sub-headings and tariff items thereof and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted. 5.1 The exemption benefit of the Notification No.20/2006-Cus. date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any exemption Notification has to be strictly interpreted. Therefore, as discussed above, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification during the disputed period. 6. The second issue is whether there was any misstatement or misdeclaration of facts so as to invoke extended period of limitation. The period of dispute is April 2011 to March 2013 wherein the appellant had filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry during the relevant period clearly showing the description of goods, the Chapter Heading and had paid BCD along with CVD and claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 or Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 on SAD as the case may be. Thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or there is any misstatement on the part of the appellant claiming the notification. In the case ANAND NISHIKAWA CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) dated 23-9-2005 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "27. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462], we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty, when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is settle....