Page 219 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] 3M INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I 401

(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 between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of
cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying prec-
edents have become locus classicus :
“Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between
one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail
may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the
temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of
one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of
the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all deci-
sive.”
*** *** ***
“Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of jus-
tice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else
you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the
path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”
28. We also find that Hon’ble Apex Court has held, in the case of Swaraj
Mazda Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 505 (S.C.) that the Tribunal is not precluded from
deciding the question on merits because of its earlier decision regarding the ear-
lier period. This judgment was followed by coordinate Bench in the case of A.B.
Mauri India Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 424 (T).
29. Coming to the issue of limitation, we find that Learned Counsel for
the appellants submits that Show Cause Notice is issued on 30-9-2011 demand-
ing duty for the period October 2006 to February 2010; they have described the
products clearly showing various applications for general purpose and for secur-
ing ostomy pouches/devices/appliances etc.; over the past several years the con-
signments have been subjected to physical examination by officers of the Cus-
toms department before allowing clearances of the same; no objection whatsoev-
er had been raised the claim of subject exemption under Notification No.
21/2002-Cus. at any time in the past. On the other hand Learned Authorised
Representative submits that the goods have mostly been cleared under the Self-
Assessment procedure. We find merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel.
The fact that the appellants are importing from a long period is not disputed. It is
not the case of the department that all the consignments were cleared under self-
assessment procedure. It is not the contention of the Revenue that the impugned
products were not subjected to examination or assessment any time. Moreover,
the decision in the case of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is sufficient to believe
that the appellants had a bona fide belief about the availability of exemption.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the extended period is not in-
vokable and penalties are not imposable.
30. In the result, appeal C/25625/2013 is partly allowed confirming
demand of duty for normal period only and by setting aside penalties. Appeal
Nos. C/25676/2013 & C/25677/2013 are allowed.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 20-3-2020)
________

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  219