Page 203 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] 3M INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I 385

2020 (373) E.L.T. 385 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
3M INDIA LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I
Final Order Nos. A/20343-20345/2020, dated 20-3-2020 in Appeal Nos.
C/25625/2013 and C/25676/2013 with C/25677/2013
Skin barriers micropore surgical tapes - Exemption under Notification
No. 21/2002-Cus. - Items imported under brand names Micropore, Transpore
and Tegaderm - Micropore is a paper based tape, whereas Transpore is a Pol-
ymer based tape with micro porous properties which allows the tape to
breathe; but do not act as Skin Barriers - Department having established that a
product named and known as ‘Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes’ exists,
it cannot be said that comma is missing in the description in the notification
and that the said entry should be read as two different items, namely, “skin
barriers” and “micropore surgical tape” - In view of this, items imported by
appellants not satisfy the description given in the notification and, therefore,
not eligible for exemption contained in the notification. [paras 20, 21, 23, 26]
Tax exemption under a Notification - Burden to prove for its entitle-
ment is on assessee claiming exemption - There is no ambiguity in the notifi-
cation and there is no need to interpret the notification by supplying what is
assumed to be missing in the notification. [para 23]
Precedents - Appellate Tribunal whether bound by its earlier decision
- Res judicata - Tribunal not precluded from deciding the question on merits
because of earlier decision of the Tribunal regarding an earlier period - Tribu-
nal to record its findings on the disputed facts - Section 129B of Customs Act,
1962. [paras 27, 28]
Demand - Limitation - Appellants importing impugned items from a
long period and such items subjected to physical examination by officers of
the Customs Department - Moreover, appellants having bona fide belief about
the availability of exemption in view of Tribunal’s decision in Sutures India
Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (370) E.L.T. 1257] - Extended period not invokable - Section 28 of
Customs Act, 1962. [para 29]
Appeals partly allowed
CASES CITED
A.B. Mauri India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (260) E.L.T. 424 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 28]
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 23, 26]
Commissioner v. Srikumar Agencies — 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ......................... [Para 27]
Equipment Sales Corporation v. Collector — 1989 (39) E.L.T. 431 (Tribunal) — Referred .......... [Para 9.1]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  203