" CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. I Customs Appeal No. 40089 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 103189/2023 dated 29.09.2023 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II, Custom House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001) M/s. Luker Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant No. 34/1912, C1, Mattathil Lane, BTS Road, Edapally, Ernakulam – 682 024. Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai Import Commissionerate, No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai – 600 001. APPEARANCE: For the Appellant : Mr. S. Murugappan, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative CORAM: HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No.40373/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2024 DATE OF DECISION: 19.03.2025 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO Brief facts of this appeal filed by M/s. Luker Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’) are that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin Zonal Unit has conducted an 2 investigation into imports of LED Lightings/ Panels/ Lamps, etc., made by the Appellant during the period from December 2017 to February 2018 and consequently the Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2022 was issued alleging wrong availment of the benefit under the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017, as amended, for clearance of goods at lower rate of duty @ 10% instead of @20%, thereby resulting in evasion of Customs duty of Rs.86,62,960/-. The impugned Original-in-Original dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai confirmed the duty demand and imposed a redemption fine of Rs.36,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation, besides imposing penalty equal to the duty demand under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 (‘ACT’) and also a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 114AA on the Appellant and imposed penalty under Section 112(a) of the ACT ibid on M/s. Seven Seas Global Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd., CHA. Aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this forum by filing the present appeal. 1.2 The Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan have argued for the Appellant and the main contentions as 3 evident from the Grounds of Appeal are summarised below: - i. It was contended that the findings in the impugned order were misplaced as Sl.No. 586A of the exemption Notification No. 50/2017 as amended by Notification No. 92/2017 dated 14.12.2017, excluded only LED lamps i.e., lighting sources with LED as source of light, falling under CTH 9405 and not all lighting devices under the said Tariff Head. It was pointed out that there was no reference to “Lamps” under Chapter Heading 9405 in the present schedule which term was replaced by the word “luminaire” which included all components such as power supply, reflector, lens, diffuser, lamp holder and electrical connection equipments including a LED module not requiring any lamp. ii. It was submitted that there was no separate heading for LED lamps in the HS nomenclature prior to 2017 and were sought to be classified under heading “other lamps” falling under CTH 8539 and under heading 8541 as LED sources and finally under CTH 8543 as ‘machines and apparatus having individual functions’. Further, it was submitted that as per the 4 HS Nomenclature in 2022, expression ‘lamps’ under CTH 9405 was removed and replaced with “luminaries”. iii. It was averred that the impugned order failed to distinguish between LED luminaires and LED lamps as LED luminaires are fixtures containing LED lamps. iv. It was put forth that by applying common parlance and popular sense test as well as the HSN notes, the exclusion of LED lamps as figuring in the Notification cannot be interpreted to include LED luminaires or all LED devices containing LED as source of light. v. It was submitted that the impugned order had erroneously taken into reckoning 5 Bills of Entry in respect of which re-assessment was accepted and refund granted by the competent authority. vi. It was contended that there was no collusion, suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement for invoking extended period as the description and other material particulars declared by the Appellant reflected the true nature and function of the goods imported. Further, it was submitted that a claim for benefit of Notification by itself was not a mis- declaration or suppression of facts. 5 vii. It was averred that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. was wrongly applied and that confiscation cannot be ordered when the goods are not physically available as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Finesse Creation Inc in its order dated 25.08.2009, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Visteon Automotive Systems India Limited . It was further submitted that a similar view was taken by CESTAT vide order dated 04.08.2016 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jewel Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, it was submitted the impugned order holding that the goods are liable for confiscation and imposing redemption fine was not sustainable. viii. Further reliance was placed on the following judgements in support of their contentions: - i. Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Excise – [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)] ii. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of central Excise, Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] iii. Vesuvius India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Vishakapatnam [2019 (370) ELT 1134 (Tri.-Hyd.)] iv. Advanced Spectra Tek Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (ACCC&I), Mumbai [2019 (369) ELT 871 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 6 v. Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2002 (145) ELT 335 (Tri.-Del.)] vi. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Vs. Hi Flow Pump Co. [2012 (282) ELT 286 (Tri.-Kolkata)] vii. Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex, Amritsar Vs. D.L. Steels [2022 (381) ELT 289 (SC)] viii. Vasantham Foundry Vs. Union of India [1997 (94) ELT 32 (SC)] 2. The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Murugappan has further submitted that the goods imported are LED Luminaires & parts which are different from LED Lamps and reference to lamps under Chapter 94 was the subject matter of HS Committee discussions and in 2022, the HSN was amended to exclude lamps from Heading 9405. It was contended that claiming exemption in terms of any Notification, is based on interpretation and bona fide belief on the part of the appellants and therefore invocation of extended period is not sustainable and consequently, confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are not imposable. 3. Shri M. Selvakumar, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department, reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that any interpretation that lamps are only restricted to light’s 7 source will render CTH 9405 meaningless and onus was on the assessee to correctly justify the claim of exemption as even after amendments in HSN explanatory notes as lighting / lamps / fittings are classified under CTH 9405 only. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgement in the case of M/s. Havells India pertaining to classification of the product declared as Lighting Fitting viz., Recessed Down Light and the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s Kanha Electronics decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal Kolkata. It was stressed that HSN explanatory notes as existed during the material time repeatedly used ‘Lamps’ only and imported goods across India were assessed and cleared accordingly. It was submitted that there was intentional mis-classification of the subject imports with an intent to evade payment of Customs duty warranting invocation of extended period and imposition of fine and penalties. 4. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the written as well as oral submissions made by the Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan and the Ld. AR Shri M. Selvakumar and other documentary evidences available on records. 8 5. Main issues that arise for consideration in this appeal are: - i. Whether the Appellant is entitled for the concessional benefit of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 92/2017 dated 14.12.2017 for imported goods viz., LED Lightings / Panels / Lamps, etc. during the period from December 2017 to February 2018, and, ii. Whether the invocation of extended period for demand of duty and for imposition of fine and penalties was justified considering the facts and circumstances of this appeal? 6. We find that the Appellant had imported LED fixtures viz., LED Floodlight, LED Panel Light, LED Outdoor Light, etc. and also Parts such as Colour Box, Outer Carton, Socket, Remote Controller, Plastic Cover, etc. With effect from 14.12.2017, all goods falling under Heading 9405 other than LED Lamps were allowed concessional duty @10% under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (Sl.No. 586A) which reads as given below: - Sl.No. Chapter or Heading or Sub-Heading for Tariff Item Description of Goods Standard Rate IGST Condition “586 A” 9405 All goods other than LED lamps 10% 9 7. The Appellants, initially not being aware of the amendment appears to have paid higher duty and subsequent to the appeal proceedings, they were able to get a refund of the excess duty paid for 5 bills of entry filed between 18.12.2017 and 26.12.2017. In respect of 15 other consignments, for which, bills of entry were filed subsequently, the benefit of lower duty was claimed which was extended by the Department. Subsequently, the DRI, Cochin have conducted the investigation alleging that LED Luminaires / Fixtures imported by the appellants during the above period will be the same as LED Lamps and therefore sought to deny the benefit of exemption and demanded differential duty, besides proposing confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties which was confirmed by the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Import. 8. We find that the Appellant’s main contention was that LED Lights and LED Lamps are not one and same. ‘LED Lamp’ refers to those which cannot be dismantled without causing permanent damage. They have submitted that they have imported LED luminaries which are other than LED lamps and therefore they are 10 entitled for concessional rate of duty under the said Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017. 9. At this juncture, it is essential to examine the relevant extracts of Chapter Headings 8539 and 9405 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and connected HSN Explanatory Notes: - Tariff - 8539 11 9405 12 HSN Chapter 9405 13 14 10. The Classification of imported goods under the first schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is governed by the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI) of Import Tariff. As per Rule 1 of GRI, classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. For the purposes of Rule 1 of GIR, the relative Section and Chapter Notes apply, unless the context otherwise requires. This is the first Rule to be considered in classifying any product. In other words, if the goods to be classified are covered by the words in a heading and the Section and Chapter Notes do not exclude classification in that heading, that 15 heading would apply to the said goods. If such headings or notes do not otherwise require then the classification is to be determined in accordance with Rule 2 to 6 of said Rules. Rule 2(b) of GRI stipulates that the classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principle laid down in Rule 3 of GRI. Rule 3(a) stipulates that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to a part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a precise or complete description of the goods. Rule 3(b) stipulates that mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials which cannot be classified under Rule 3(a) shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them essential character. 11. The main contention of the Appellant is that for a Lamp or lighting fittings to be classifiable under Chapter 94, it must not be specified or included elsewhere 16 meaning that the lamp or lighting fittings must not be covered by any other heading of any other Chapter which is consistent with Note 1(f) to Chapter 94 that excludes “lamps and lighting fittings of Chapter 85;” from its scope.; that the only plausible Tariff Item is 8539 of Chapter 85 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; that it is clear from the wordings of CTH 8539, that the same refers specifically and exclusively to “electric filament or discharge lamps, including sealed beam lamp units and ultraviolet or infra-red lamps; arc lamps; Light emitting diode (LED) Lamps”.; that heading applies only to lamps which use a particular technique in order to produce light. The Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan arguing for the Appellant has submitted that the scope of the above entry becomes clearer when read in conjunction with the Chapter Heading, that Chapter 85 intends to include lamps which are used in conjunction with other electrical equipment and which are generally not used independently but designed to play a particular role as components in electrical equipment. Example: capacitors, switches, fuses, junction boxes, valves and tubes etc.; Light Emitting Diode (LED) is the basic semi-conductor device that emits light when electric current passes through it and when the same is installed 17 in a lighting fixture with other electrical components and connected to a power source, it emits light and becomes a LED lamp. The word Lamp in Chapter 8539 is used to include bulbs - the diode along with electrical components like glass covering, drivers, etc., and a screw with wires for connecting to a power source. These are intended to be installed in a luminaire or a general lighting system. The luminaires are the final lighting fittings. They would be assembling the LED bulbs with different types of fittings to suit the end use of its buyers. These lights are usually permanently fixed to a light source. 12. Also, as per Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Interpretation, when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. If the product is classified based on the specific heading read with Section and Chapter Notes, then the classification of the product has to be done under the said heading only. We find that the appellant has imported LED lighting fixtures. As this makes it a LED lighting product, it is being classified under the Tariff Heading 9405 which specifies finished 18 lights with fixtures whereas LED bulb alone will merit classification under Chapter 85 which deals with Electrical Components like the LED bulbs in conjunction with electrical machinery and parts thereof. Chapter 94 specifically excludes lamps and lights of Chapter 85. The HSN 8539 covers Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps only whereas a specific HSN 9405 includes LED lightings or fixtures. As the specific latter entry covers the fixtures along with LED lamps, this will squarely be applicable to the applicant, who imports both LED lamps and fittings. Therefore, the import of LED lamps & fittings may be classified under CTH 9405 rather than CTH 8539. The above discussion about classification of LED Lamps, LED Lights or LED Luminaires has been necessitated due to the Appellant’s contentions that LED Lamps are not classifiable under CTH 9405 and distinguishable characteristics of these. 13. The Appellant has imported LED Lightings / Panels / Lamps and their parts. The item description as culled out from the Bills of Entry filed by the Appellant are: - 19 i. TS LED Light ii. LED Emergency iii. LED Light iv. LED Panel without Driver (specifically mentioned as Parts of LED Panel without Driver) v. LED Floodlight vi. LED Panel Light with integrated Drive vii. LED Downlight viii. LED Outdoor Light The importer has in addition to the above, imported the following as parts: - (i) Colour Box (ii) Outer Carton (iii) Socket (iv) Controller (v) Remote Controller (vi) Plastic cover (vii) End Cap (viii) Screw and Clamp etc. On analysis of Chapter Heading 9405 and the connected HSN Explanatory Notes, it is revealed that this covers lamps and lighting fittings and their parts which are not specified or included elsewhere. This Heading covers 20 Hanging Lamps, Wall Lamps, Table / Desk or bedside Lamps, Search Lights, Sport Lights, non-Electric Lamps, Oil Pressure Lamps and their fittings and their parts. 14. There is no dispute as to the classification of these lighting fixtures, panels, parts, etc. imported. The classification adopted by the importer under Chapter Heading 9405 has been accepted by the Department. Now, the issue that arises for determination is only relating to their eligibility for import of these goods at concessional rate of duty of 10% under the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. 15. Thus, the main issue relates to the interpretation of the exemption notification. Tax exemption Notification needs to be strictly interpreted. The argument that LED lamps would not fall under Chapter 9405 or imported items are not LED Lamps but LED light fittings (Luminaire) and their parts is not convincing to us. No need to minutely distinguish the LED Lamp or LED Light or LED Luminaire for the purpose of interpreting the language employed in the Notification. 21 LED is the source of light in these fittings. Source of light can be other than LED and then also these light fittings are classified under Chapter 9405 which covers all kinds of lights / lighting fittings. Intent of the Notification is to exclude LED lights and the light fittings which use LEDs as source of light. 16. The fact that the Notification No. 92/2017 dated 14.12.2017 speaks about all goods other than LED lamps which are classified under Chapter 9405 is relevant here. There is no need to refer to the LED Lamps classifiable under Chapter 85 in order to determine whether the Appellant is eligible for the benefit of this Notification. It is relevant to note here that there is no dispute as to the classification adopted in respect of the imported goods. 17. The Appellant has submitted that as per HSN in 2022, expression ‘Lamps’ under CTH 9405 was removed and replaced with ‘Luminaires’. The period involved in this appeal is between December 2017 to February 2018. As such, we are of the view that for the period under dispute certain types of LED Lamps / Lights are 22 classifiable under Chapter Heading 9405 which are not eligible for the concessional benefit of the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 92/2017 dated 14.12.2017. This is the only interpretation that is relevant to resolve the dispute in this appeal. All along, it was the contention of the Appellant that they had imported luminaires and not lamps, and the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 has to be interpreted not to exclude LED Luminaires cannot be supported as we are not convinced with the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. What is needed to be discussed here is only relating to the eligibility of the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 for the imported goods by the Appellant which are described mainly as TS LED Lights, LED Emergency, LED Light, LED Floodlight, LED Downlight, LED Outdoor Light and their parts. 18. In this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] held that the burden for entitlement of the benefit of any exemption Notification is on the assessee. It was 23 further held therein that while interpretation of the tax statutes, regard must be had to the clear meaning of words and matter should be governed wholly by the language of the Notification. Equity or intendment having no place in interpretation of a tax statute. The operative portion of the above order is extracted below: - “52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under - (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled.” As such, the imported goods are not eligible for the benefit of partial exemption of duty in terms of the Notification No. 92/2017 dated 14.02.2017. So ordered accordingly. 24 19.1 On the issue of invocation of extended period, we have considered the Ld. Counsel’s submissions that the appellant has been importing LED fixtures for a long time and there was no dispute in this regard relating to classification except for the proceedings initiated on account of the DRI investigation. It was submitted that the impugned order had erroneously taken into reckoning 5 Bills of Entry in respect of which re-assessment was accepted and refund was even granted by the competent authority. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the cases of Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)] and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]. 19.2 It is a well settled principle that invocation of larger period is not a rule but an exception, wherein, there should be ample justification to invoke the same. That too, while dealing with an indirect tax, it has to be exercised with utmost caution. The relevant portion of the decisions are extracted below: - 25 i. In the case of Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (5) TMI 967-SC], the Apex Court has held as follows: - “62. The revenue’s argument that the assessee had indulged in wilful suppression, in this court’s considered view, is insubstantial. The view of a previous three judge ruling, in Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise (1995) 6 SCC 117 - in the context of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is in identical terms with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was that: “Now so far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the requisite intent, i.e., intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as misstatement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word “wilful” preceding the words “misstatement or suppression of facts” which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words “contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or rules” are again qualified by the immediately following words “with intent to evade payment of duty”. It is, therefore, not correct to say that there can be a suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11-A. Misstatement or suppression of fact must be wilful.” 63. This decision was followed in Uniworth Textiles v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2013) 9 SCC 753 where it was observed that “the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts” is “untenable”. This view was also followed in 26 Escorts v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 9 SCC 109, Commissioner of Customs v. Magus Metals (2017) 16 SCC 491 and other judgments.” Further, it has been a well settled law, that in matters relating to technical interpretation and classifications, suppression of fact / wilful misstatement has to be used with utmost caution and justification. The ratio of the above decision is applicable to the facts of this appeal. Merely claiming the benefit of any Notification can not be equated with suppression or wilful misstatement. ii. In the case of K.B. Autosys India Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 17-CESTAT CHENNAI], it has been held: - “18. …. …… ….. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)] held that merely claiming the benefit of exemption or a particular classification under the Bill of Entry does not amount to mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of 27 Customs Vs. Gaurav Enterprises [2006 (193) ELT 532 (Bom.)] has also held that claiming the benefit of exemption in the Bills of Entry filed under the Act does not amount to suppression / mis-declaration. Further, it has been held in the case of Lewek Altair Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2019 (366) ELT 318 (Tri.-Hyd.)] which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that claiming an incorrect classification or the benefit of an ineligible exemption Notification does not amount to making a false or incorrect statement as it is not an incorrect description of the goods or their value but only a claim made by the assessee. In the absence of any finding of positive suppression by the Appellant in the impugned order, we find that the allegation of wilful misclassification and intention to evade duty by the Respondent is not at all tenable and misclassification could not be equated with misdeclaration within the meaning of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering the above facts that the Respondent is a regular importer of the product which is used in the manufacture of Brake pads and also considering that they were adopting the above classification consistently, we are of the opinion that attributing any malafide intention or motive for adopting such classification or claiming exemption benefit of the Notification is not justified, considering the facts of this case. As such invocation of extended period for demand of duty in terms of provision of section 28(4) of Custom Act 1962 is not legal or justified. The issue of 28 limitation is answered in favour of the Respondent importer.” 19.3 Thus, in the absence of any finding of suppression by the Appellant in the impugned order, we find that the allegation of deliberate availment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 with an intent to evade payment of appropriate duty by the Appellant is not at all tenable as misclassification or availment of benefit of the Notification could not be equated with misdeclaration or suppression within the meaning of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is a settled law that once the goods are correctly described and the appellant has availed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty of Notification which has been accepted by the Departmental Authorities, the importer’s action cannot be termed as suppression or misdeclaration or with wilful misstatement. 19.4 From the above facts, we find that the issue has been very much in the know of the revenue as the Appellants, initially not being aware of these amendments paid higher duty and subsequent to the appeal proceedings, they were able to get a refund of the excess 29 duty paid for 5 bills of entry filed between 18.12.2017 and 26.12.2017. In respect of 15 other consignments, for which, bills of entry were filed subsequently, benefit of lower duty was claimed and extended by the Department. Subsequently only the DRI, Cochin conducted detailed investigation resulting in the issuance of the impugned order dated 29.09.2023. Hence invocation of extended period of limitation is not legally sustainable as we are of the considered view that the appellant has not suppressed or mis-declared any fact. Therefore, invoking extended period in these proceedings, either for demand of duty or for imposition of penalties is not at all sustainable. So, the issue of limitation is decided in favour of the appellant and consequently the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalties are set aside. 20. To sum up, we hold that the imported LED lighting fixtures are not eligible for the benefit of the said Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017. For the imports made from December 2017 to February 2018, the Show Cause Notice demanding duty and proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine and 30 penalty was issued vide DIN: 20221273MX0000333F1B dated 06.12.2022 which is after the expiry of the normal period. As we have held that there is no ground for invoking the extended period in this appeal, we cannot sustain the impugned Order-in-Original No. 103189/2023 dated 29.09.2023 which requires to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 21. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. (Order pronounced in open court on 19.03.2025) (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MK "