Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Suresh I Dhruv vs Commissioner Of Customs(Air Cargo) on 11 March, 2026
C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 20127 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-CUSTM-AIR-63/2020 dated
31.01.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore.)
M/s. Bangalore Refinery
Private Limited,
No. 6/1, Plot No. 20A, Appellant(s)
KIADB Main Road,
1st Cross, 1st Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
VERSUS
The Principal Commissioner
of Customs
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Air India SATS Airfreight Terminal, Respondent(s)
KIAL, Devanahalli, Bengaluru - 560 300.
With Customs Appeal No. 20208 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-CUSTM-AIR-63/2020 dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.) Sri Suresh I Dhruv M/s. Bangalore Refinery Private Limited, No. 6/1, Plot No. 20A, Appellant(s) KIADB Main Road, 1st Cross, 1st Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru - 560 058.
VERSUS The Principal Commissioner of Customs Airport and Air Cargo Complex, Air India SATS Airfreight Terminal, KIAL, Devanahalli, Respondent(s) Bengaluru - 560 300.
And Customs Appeal No. 20209 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-CUSTM-AIR-63/2020 dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.) Page 1 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 Sri Ketan S Dhruv M/s. Bangalore Refinery Private Limited, No. 6/1, Plot No. 20A, Appellant(s) KIADB Main Road, 1st Cross, 1st Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru - 560 058.
VERSUS The Principal Commissioner of Customs Airport and Air Cargo Complex, Air India SATS Airfreight Terminal, Respondent(s) KIAL, Devanahalli, Bengaluru - 560 300.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. G. Shivadass, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishab and Ms. Shradha Pandey, Advocates for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS R BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 20286 to 20288 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 12.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 11.03.2026 PER : DR. D.M. MISRA These appeals are filed against Order-in-Original No. BLR- CUSTM-AIR-63/2020 dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in import of Gold Dore Bars(GDBs, for short) having gold content not exceeding 95% through Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru. The said imported goods were shipped from Ghana Page 2 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 and Peru. The appellant had availed benefit of exemption of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 in discharging duty on such gold bars for the imports made during the period 01.07.2014 to 28.11.2016. On the basis of intelligence, investigation was initiated by the DRI, Bangalore Zonal Unit on the premise that the appellant has wrongly availed the benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus by conducting search at the office premises of the appellant on 20.01.2015 and 12.06.2017, recording statement etc. On completion of investigation, show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 18.06.2019 denying the benefit of Sl.No.318 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 and demanding differential duty of Rs.33,02,98,200/- short paid on the import made during the period from 01.07.2014 to 28.11.2016 under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962; proposing confiscation of the gold bars weighing 868.937 kgs. imported during the said period and imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant company and also the Directors. On adjudication, the differential duty was confirmed with interest; an amount of Rs.25 lakhs paid has been appropriated; penalty of equivalent amount was imposed under Section 114A; penalty of Rs.10 lakhs under Section 114AA was imposed on the appellant and penalty of Rs.10 lakhs each on Shri Suresh I Dhruv and Shri Ketan S. Dhruv, Directors under Section 112(a) and penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs on each of them under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed.
Hence, the present appeals.
3.1. At the outset, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is engaged in refining precious metals and manufacturing goods such as gold and silver salts, gold and silver bars, branded and unbranded gold/silver coins, jewelries etc. and also import and purchase of GDBs. During the period 01.07.2014 to 28.11.2016, the appellant had Page 3 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 imported GDBs having gold content less than 95% from Ghana and Peru. While importing the said GDBs, the appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 claiming concessional rate of duty as was in force during the relevant period. The appellant had complied with the Condition No.5 and Condition No.34 of the said Notification and accordingly the Bills of Entry were assessed and allowed concessional rate of duty under the said Notification.
3.2. Explaining the imports from the country Ghana, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted the following:
➢ Ghana is a gold producing country from where majority of gold exports take place. There is a specific process of mining, production and sale of dore bars that is followed in Ghana. The miners mine the gold ore and convert it to gold concentrate, nuggets (which is rich in gold) and smelt it to dore bar (which contains 80-95% of gold content).
➢ The miners who do not have the facility to smelt the gold concentrate take it to a government authorized exporter. The exporter smelts the gold and casts the same into gold dore bars in the presence of the miner or its representative. The gold dore bars are then weighed and assayed by the miner, on the basis of which the miner prepares a packaging list. (Page No. 7 of Volume I of the Appeal Paperbook) ➢ In Ghana the exporters have entered into an agreement with the Government of Ghana which authorizes the exporter to issue an assay certificate to that particular miner. (Page No. 102-108 of Volume I of the Appeal Paperbook).
➢ In case the miner decides to export the gold dore bars, the exporter will weigh and assay the gold dore bars and the miner will transfer the gold dore bars to the exporter along with the packaging list.Page 4 of 18
C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 ➢ The exporter also prepares other documents as required by law based on the miner's packaging list and assay certificate for the purpose of export.
➢ The Appellant after negotiations with overseas licensed suppliers through a local broker in Ghana placed orders fixing the rate of purchase as per London Metal Exchange (USD per ounce for pure gold). The payment for the imports were made by the Appellant upon receiving the gold dore bars and receiving the scanned copies of the original documents such as invoice, Airway Bill, Country of Origin, Packaging List, Assay Certificate, Export License along with the consignment.
3.3. Similarly for imports from Peru, he has submitted the following:
➢ For imports from Peru, the Appellant placed the order directly to the support service provider, who then negotiated the rate of the gold dore bars. After negotiation, the service provider confirmed the rate of the gold dore bars and the order over phone.
➢ The service provider contacted the miner and arranged for the export of gold dore bars. Upon confirmation of the order, the order is dispatched to the Appellant.
➢ Similar to the process followed in imports from Ghana, the Appellant received the scanned documents from the mining company and the exporter and thereafter, the same is submitted to the Customs Housing Authority for the purpose of clearing the consignment.
3.4. He has further submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the differential duty alleging that the appellant had not satisfied the Condition No.34(b) and 34(c) of the exemption notification.Page 5 of 18
C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 3.5. In relation to the imports made from Ghana, claiming that they have complied with the said conditions, he has submitted the following:-
➢ In Ghana, small scale mining companies follow a practice wherein an in-house smelting and assaying facility is not available to all the miners, in such cases the miner approaches the authorized exporter for carrying such activities and subsequently exports gold dore bars. ➢ A declaration is filed by the Exporters which clearly states that they are authorized by the Ghana Government to undertake the export of gold mined in the Country and have the requisite smelting and assaying facility, which in the present case is undertaken by them in the presence of the miner.
➢ In this regard, they placed reliance on Section 6 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 of Ghana wherein it has been clearly stated that a person authorized and holding a license granted by the Minister shall only be allowed to export, sell or dispose the minerals.
➢ In the Agreements between the Government of Ghana and the miners, it is stated that all the gold mined by a miner shall be sold only to a buyer authorized by the Government.
➢ The relevant documents viz. the packing lists, clearly indicate that the packing list issued by the Exporter has been made in accordance with the packing list of the miner.
3.6 With regard to the imports from Peru, it is submitted as:
➢ They are not liable for payment of differential duty on the gold dore bars imported from Peru as the conditions of the Notification with respect to the import of the gold dore bars have been duly fulfilled by the Appellant. ➢ In the present case, the miners in Peru are themselves the exporter, therefore the packing list is provided by the miner themselves after the gold dore bar is ready for export.
➢ Thus the condition 34(b) of the Notification has been fulfilled in case of the imports of gold dore bars from Peru.Page 6 of 18
C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 ➢ As far as condition 34(c) of the Notification is concerned, it is required by the importer to produce an assay certificate issued by the mining company.
➢ In Peru, it is the same company who is the miner and the exporter of the gold dore bar manufactured. The mere fact that the mine is located away from the assaying facility cannot be a determining factor to deny the benefit of the exemption. Therefore, the packaging list and the assay certificates issued by the same company mining, duly fulfill the conditions of the Notification.
3.7. In support of their claim that they have complied with the condition of notification, they placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajesh Exports Vs. Chairman, CBE&C [2016(335) ELT 3 (Kar.)], which has been later upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2017(349) ELT A90 (SC). Also, they have referred to the following judgments in support of their argument:
i. Edelweiss Metals Ltd. υ. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2019 (366) E.L.T. 539 (Tri. Ahmd.) ii. Hindalco Industries Ltd. υ. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2015 (329) E.L.T. 395 (Tri. Ahmd.) affirmed in Commissioner v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2016 (331) E.L.T. A38 (S.C.) iii. Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd. 2005 (189) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)], iv. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)] v. Ugam Chand Bhandari vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004 (167) ELT 491 (SC)] vi. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Pragathi Concrete Products (P.) Ltd., [2015 (322) E.L.T. 819 (S.C.)] vii. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. Essel Propack Ltd., [2015 (323) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] 3.8. The learned Senior Advocate, emphasising his argument, has submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in Page 7 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 observing that since packing list has not been issued by the Miner on the imports from Ghana, the condition of the Notification has not been fulfilled. Assailing the said finding, he has submitted that the phrase used in the notification is 'in accordance with' which clearly indicates that there is no requirement for miner himself to issue the packing list but the same could be issued by any other person; however, it must contain particulars as indicated in the miner's packing list.
Packing list produced by the appellant during the course of investigation clearly indicates that the packing list issued by the exporter has been made in accordance with the packing list of the miner. Referring to the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC(Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018(361) ELT 577 (SC)], he has submitted that literal or plain meaning test must be applied while interpreting a taxing statute. Also, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Kerala and ors. Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent [AIR 2021 SC 1217] to advance their argument that a distinction must be made in exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which has a beneficial purpose. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. Further, he has submitted that the rate of CVD applied in computing the demand is erroneous. In support, they referred to the judgment in the case of CC (Exports), Chennai Vs. Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2016(338) ELT 44 (Mad.)] and in Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2015(318) ELT 3 (SC)].
3.9. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the learned Commissioner in the impugned order erred in invoking the extended period while confirming the demand. He has submitted that the extended period of limitation as prescribed Page 8 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 under Section 28(4) is invocable only in cases where there is fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression on the part of the assessee. In the present case, the appellant was under a bona fide belief that they had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under the exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. All the relevant documents were submitted while filing the Bills of Entry for clearance of the imported GDBs which included the export agreements, mining license mentioning the name of the miner, the packing list and the assay certificate etc. The Customs authorities have allowed clearance of the GDBs allowing exemption after due verification of these documents. In such circumstances, confirmation of demand alleging suppression of facts is not justified. In support, he has referred to the following judgments:-
➢ Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC), ➢ Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)] ➢ Ugam Chand Bhandari vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004 (167) ELT 491 (SC)] ➢ Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Pragathi Concrete Products (P.) Ltd., [2015 (322) E.L.T. 819 (S.C.)] ➢ Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. Essel Propack Ltd., [2015 (323) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] 3.10. Further, he has submitted that imposition of personal penalties on the Directors in absence of any mala fide intention is bad in law and hence not sustainable.
4.1. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterating the findings of the learned Commissioner has submitted that the appellant had failed to comply with the Conditions 34(b) and 34(c) of the said Notification. He has submitted that the miners do not have facility for smelting and assaying the purity of gold; due to which, the miners bring the gold to exporters, who smelts and assays the gold and packing list is prepared accordingly. Thus, both the miner and the exporter have prepared the packing list Page 9 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 with the same details. Rebutting the claim of the appellant that they complied with the condition 34(b) of the said notification, he has submitted that the mining is done by individuals or group of people or some company. Apart from this possibility, the mining companies / exporters along with their own mining may be buying from individuals or group of people who may be mining for themselves. It is an acceptable proposition because none of the miners are equipped with facility of smelting and assaying. Providing the list of top gold mining companies, he has submitted that the appellant had failed to comply the conditions of Notification; hence, in view of the judgment in the case of Dilip Kumar & company [2018(361) ELT 577 (SC)] and in the case of Shri Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010(260) ELT 3 (SC)], they are not eligible to the benefit of the said notification.
4.2. Further, he has submitted that in the Bills of Entry, the appellant had mentioned Mining packing list and assay certificate attached. All the Bills of Entry accompany with the copy of the packing list by the miners or mining company which reflects the quantity and purity of GDBs. What is suppressed from the Department is that the order for import is placed on the exporter or a middle man thereby existence of small miner in the case at hand is itself under doubt; all the import orders are placed verbally and there is no official correspondence for placing such high value imports; even otherwise small miners do not have the facility to assay the gold and the purity mentioned in the packing list of miners is prepared / based on the assaying of gold by the exporter or the assaying agency attached to the exporter. Even the quantity mentioned in the packing list by the small miners is not correct reflection of the actual quantity mined. The said small miners bring gold in raw / ore form to the exporter who in turn smelts it to convert it to gold dores. When the raw / ore gold is smelted, there is bound to be process loss and a different smelted quantity of gold (after process loss during smelting) will Page 10 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 result. In all the cases of import, the quantity mentioned in the packing list of miner / mining company and the export invoice is one and the same. In all cases, the actual quantity of gold mined by the small miners who does not have the facility of smelting, is suppressed with intention to evade duty; hence, invocation of extended period is justified. In support, he has referred to the judgment in the following cases:-
i. Bilwa Labs [2013(294) ELT 510 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. UOI Vs. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1996(86) ELT 460 (SC)] iii. Mehta & Co. [2011(264) ELT 481 (SC)] iv. Alumayer India Pvt. Ltd. [2012(278) ELT 123 (Tri. Bang.)] v. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. [(2025) 26 Centax 345 (Tri. Bang.)]
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The limited question arose in the present appeals for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sl.No.318 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. Dated 17.03.2012. For better appreciation of the issue in hand , the said Notification and the relevant conditions 5 & 34 in dispute are reproduced below:-
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. Dated 17.03.2012 Effective rates of basic and additional duty for specified goods falling under Chapters 1 to 98 - Jumbo Notification No. 21/2012-Cus.
Table
Sl.No. Chapter Description of goods Standar Additional Condition
or d rate duty rate No.
Heading
or Sub-
heading
or tariff
item
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
318. 71 Gold dore bar, Nil 2% 5 and 34
having gold content
not exceeding 95%
Condition No. Conditions
5. If the importer follows the procedure set out in the customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.Page 11 of 18
C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 Condition No. Conditions
34. If,-
(a) the goods are directly shipped from the country in which they were produced and each bar has a weight of 5kg. or above;
(b) the goods are imported in accordance with the packing list issued by the mining company by whom they were produced;
(c) the importer produces before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, an assay certificate issued by the mining company or the laboratory attached to it, giving detailed precious metal content in the dore bar;
(d) the gold dore bars are imported by the actual user for the purpose of refining and manufacture of standard gold bars of purity 99.5% and above; and
(e) the silver dore bars are imported by the actual user for the purpose of refining and manufacture of silver bars of purity 99.9% and above.
7. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has accepted that the appellant has fulfilled the Condition No.5 and also Condition No.34(a) of the said Notification. However, he has concluded that the appellant has failed to comply with the Condition No.34(b). A plain reading of clause (b) of Condition 34 reveals that the goods are imported in accordance with the packing list issued by the mining company by whom they were produced. In the present case, the finding of the Commissioner that the miners have not themselves prepared the packing list but various exporters like M/s. K.K. Enterprises Limited, Ghana, M/s. BGS International DMCC Ghana Ltd., Ghana, M/s. A.A. Minerals Limited, Accra-North Ghana, M/s. Alexjeff Ventures ltd., Ghana, M/s, Phoenix Precious Metals and Chemicals, Peru etc. have prepared the packing list. Even though the appellant had claimed before him that two packing lists were issued, one by the miners and the other one is by the exporters, being peculiar situation exists in Ghana, but the learned Commissioner has not accepted the said argument observing that no agreement between the miners and exporters to the effect of casting of GDBs and assaying of such GDBs has been produced. He has further observed that the exporters are themselves being non- miners; therefore, packing list issued by a miner who produced only gold exclusively and not gold bars is not a valid document.
Page 12 of 18C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 Further, the exporter who issued packing list is not a miner and is also not a valid document to satisfy the said condition. Therefore, the appellant failed to comply with the condition 34(b) of the said Notification. Also, the learned Commissioner has held that the appellant failed to comply with the condition No.34(c) of the said Notification particularly imports from Peru which requires the importer to produce before the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs the assay certificate issued by the mining company or the laboratory attached to it, giving detailed precious metal content in the dore bar. He has held that there is no documentary evidence to prove conclusively that the agency or laboratory are attached with the mining company. Since the appellant has not submitted any evidence from the mining companies which are producing GDBs to the effect that various agencies / laboratories attached with them but the assay certificate issued by exporters who are not the miners of gold bars or laboratory attached to them; therefore, the said condition has not been complied with.
8. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate on the other hand is that the appellant has imported GDBs from two countries viz. Ghana and Peru. The export business in gold in Ghana is different from that of Peru. In Ghana, small miners are authorized to export the GDBs after approaching the authorized exporters by the Minister of Ghana to smelt it and issue assay certificate, allowed to export through the authorized exporters. In the present case, the appellant had produced packing list from the miners as well as assay certificate and the packing list issued by the exporters in respect of Ghana imports. All these documents have been submitted along with Bills of Entry at the time of assessment claiming the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. It is his contention that the condition No.34(b) of the said Notification has been complied in the case of Ghana imports. In the case of imports from Peru, the miner and the exporter are one and the same; therefore, the Page 13 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 packing list as well as assay certificate have been issued by the miner and exporter. Therefore, there is no issue as for as imports from Peru are concerned in complying with the Condition No.34(b). In such imports, the learned Commissioner held that the laboratory is not attached to the mining company but away from the mining company; hence, condition 34(c) is not satisfied. It is their argument that 'attached to mining company' does not mean physical attachment and the laboratory once undertaking the analysis of the GDBs and issues assay certificate, it complies with the condition No.34(c), being attached to do such tests and issue certificate.
9. We find merit in the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant. At the time of assessment of Bills of Entry, the appellant has produced the packing list issued by the exporter along with assay certificate analysing the content of gold and also the packing list of miners, the same are extracted below:-
Page 14 of 18C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 Page 15 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 Page 16 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020
10. Scrutiny of these documents revealed that there is no variation in the packing list issued by the miners with that of the exporters. In the case of Chairman, CBE&C Vs. Rajesh Exports Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court interpreting the expression "in accordance with" held that the packing list need not be issued by the mining company alone but it is in accordance with the mining company. In the present case, the mining company has issued the packing list along with assay certificate issued by the exporters to the appellant. Thus, in case of Ghana imports, the appellant has complied with the Condition No.34(b) of the said Notification.
11. As far as Condition No.34(c) is concerned in case of imports from Peru, we find that the laboratory attached to the mining company situated at a distance cannot be construed as that the laboratory is not attached to the mining company where the analysis of the gold was conducted and assay certificate had Page 17 of 18 C/20127/2022; C/ 20208 & 20209/2020 been issued to the mining company, who is also the exporter. Attachment of the laboratory cannot be interpreted to physical attachment with the mines. If such an interpretation is accepted, it will be at the cost of addition of words to the condition not present in the exemption Notification. Thus, the appellant had complied with both the Clauses of (b) and (c) of Condition No.34. Hence, denial of benefit of exemption Notification by the adjudicating authority is unjustified.
12. Besides, we find that all the documents have been submitted by the appellant along with Bills of Entry including the packing lists issued by the mining company as well as the exporter, invoices, assay certificates etc. during the course of assessment. The Department, only after scrutinizing these documents, allowed the benefit of exemption to be availed by the appellant. Later, analysing the same set of documents, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has mis-declared or suppressed the facts from the knowledge of the Department leading to invocation of extended period of limitation. Thus, the demand also fails on the ground of limitation.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 11.03.2026) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Raja...
Page 18 of 18