JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue and Sri. M.P. Devnath alongwith Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal dated 22.2.2017. 3. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law : “1. Whether amendment in the Bills of Entry can be allowed even when the Certificate of Origin was issued at a later date retrospectively and was not available at the time of clearance of the Bills of Entry in contravention of the Section 149 of the Customs Act ‘1962? 2. Whether the certificate of origin issued retrospectively by virtue of the notification No. 187/2009-NT dated 31.12.2009 can supersede the procedure/requirement as laid down in Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 pertaining to amendment in the bills of entry?” 4. At the relevant time, the assessee had imported various consignments of goods mainly LCD panels from Republic of Korea. The goods were imported upon clearance of fifty eight number of ‘Bills of Entry’ (hereinafter referred to as subject ‘Bills of Entry’) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The subject ‘Bills of Entry’ were assessed at tariff rate of duty accepting the claim with regard to classification, notification and duty structure etc. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Meerut Zone, Noida claiming refund of duty paid on the strength of ‘Certificate of Origin’ issued retrospectively by the designated authority of the Republic of Korea. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, it having been filed prematurely before amendment of the subject ‘Bills of Entry’. 5. The assessee then approached the Additional Commissioner, Customs, I.C.D., Dadri for permission to amend subject ‘Bills of Entry’ under Section 128-A of the Act. Consequently, refund of excess duty paid was also prayed for. By his order-in-original dated 29.7.2013, the Additional Commissioner held that the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ be amended under Section 149 of the Act based on the ‘Certificate of Origin’ later produced by the assessee. 6. The revenue challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Noida by his order dated 17.2.2014 confirmed the order-in-original and dismissed the revenue’s appeal. 6. The revenue challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Noida by his order dated 17.2.2014 confirmed the order-in-original and dismissed the revenue’s appeal. Being not satisfied, the revenue filed an appeal before the Customs Excise Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal in short) against the order dated 17.2.2014. The Tribunal has by its impugned order dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the revenue’s appeal. The Tribunal has followed its’ earlier order in the case of the assessee being order dated 9.9.2016 in appeal No. 710 of 2010. It has held as below : “I find that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra, under the similar facts and circumstances in the case of Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. In Appeal No. C/709 & 710/2010-CU[SM] vide Final Order No. 70816-70817/2016 dated 9.9.2016, taking notice of the relevant provisions and also the provisions of Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, it was held as follows: Having carefully considered the rival contentions, I hold that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in rejecting the appeal and it is clear case of failure of his part to exercise jurisdiction. In the interest of justice, I allow these appeals by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to verify the claim of the appellant and to allow the same after verifying the authenticity of the Certificate of Origin. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority with their representation and supporting within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and seek an opportunity of hearing.” 7. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the revenue has relied on proviso to Section 149 of the Act to submit that the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ could not have been amended after the goods had been imported and cleared for home consumption on the basis of documentary evidence that was not in existence when those goods were so cleared. According to him, there is no dispute to the fact that the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ had been sought to be amended on the strength of the ‘Certificate of Origin’ issued subsequently i.e. after the goods had been cleared for home consumption at the instance of the assessee. According to him, there is no dispute to the fact that the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ had been sought to be amended on the strength of the ‘Certificate of Origin’ issued subsequently i.e. after the goods had been cleared for home consumption at the instance of the assessee. In this regard, during the course of hearing a chart has been supplied by learned counsel for the revenue containing details of serial number of the subject ‘Bills of Entry’; date on which the goods were presented for examination; the date on which the goods were cleared for home consumption and; the serial number and date of the issue of the ‘Certificate of Origin’ against which the assessee had claimed refund of duty. The contents of the said chart are extracted below: S. No. B/E No. Date C.O.O. No. Date Date of presentation of goods & Examination 1. 3536273 18.5.2011 211200236 23.2.2012 18.5.2011 2. 5554848 23.12.2011 211200219 14.2.2012 31.12.2011 3. 5616726 30.12.2011 211200217 14.2.2012 2.1.2012 4. 5670431 6.1.2012 211200218 14.2.2012 7.1.2012 5. 5676597 7.1.2012 211200237 23.2.2012 9.1.2012 6. 5834965 25.1.2012 211200241 23.2.2012 27.1.2012 7. 6142191 1.3.2012 211200486 29.3.2012 2.3.2012 8. 6141755 1.3.2012 301200229 2.3.2012 2.3.2012 9. 6263663 14.3.2012 301200343 28.3.2012 15.3.2012 10. 6199493 7.3.2012 211200488 29.3.2012 9.3.2012 11. 6392067 28.3.2012 211200410 21.3.2012 30.8.2012 12. 6465558 5.4.2012 301200392 5.4.2012 7.4.2012 13. 7244052 28.6.2012 211200883 5.6.2012 29.6.2012 14. 7169101 20.6.2012 301200587 30.5.2012 21.6.2012 15. 7169089 20.6.2012 211200847 30.5.2012 21.6.2012 16. 7157114 19.6.2012 1120519378 18.7.2012 21.6.2012 17. 7169276 20.6.2012 211200851 30.5.2012 21.6.2012 18. 6392040 28.3.2012 211200347 8.3.2012 30.3.2012 19. 6526033 12.4.2012 211200428 22.3.2012 16.4.2012 20. 6581310 18.4.2012 211200515 2.4.2012 19.4.2012 21. 5956780 9.2.2012 211200676 21.4.2012 9.2.2012 22. 6142791 1.3.2012 211200664 24.4.2012 2.3.2012 23. 6455399 5.4.2012 211200569 13.4.2012 7.4.2012 24. 6023131 16.2.2012 211200667 24.4.2012 17.2.2012 25. 3414457 13.4.2011 211200148 27.1.2012 7.5.2011 26. 3624201 27.5.2011 211200128 20.1.2012 1.6.2011 27. 3656686 31.5.2011 211200058 16.1.2012 3.6.2011 28. 3778134 13.6.2011 211100999 26.8.2011 15.6.2011 29. 3851782 21.6.2011 211101102 2.9.2011 22.6.2011 30. 4148419 22.7.2011 211100689 28.7.2011 25.7.2011 31. 4168971 25.7.2011 211100894 22.8.2011 28.7.2011 32. 4342249 11.8.2011 211101786 22.12.2011 12.8.2011 33. 4402121 19.8.2011 211101802 22.12.2011 19.8.2011 34. 4575616 7.9.2011 211200153 27.1.2012 12.9.2011 35. 4575517 7.9.2011 211101784 22.12.2011 12.9.2011 36. 4999862 22.10.2011 211101542 6.10.2011 24.10.2011 37. 5097071 3.11.2011 211101593 23.10.2011 4.11.2011 38. 6262590 14.3.2012 211200371 16.3.2012 15.3.2012 39. 6392419 28.3.2012 211200348 8.3.2012 30.3.2012 40. 6144194 1.3.2012 211200291 2.3.2012 2.3.2012 41. 5835167 25.1.2012 211200229 17.2.2012 30.1.2012 42. 5725420 13.1.2012 211200234 17.2.2012 13.1.2012 43. 4402121 19.8.2011 211101802 22.12.2011 19.8.2011 34. 4575616 7.9.2011 211200153 27.1.2012 12.9.2011 35. 4575517 7.9.2011 211101784 22.12.2011 12.9.2011 36. 4999862 22.10.2011 211101542 6.10.2011 24.10.2011 37. 5097071 3.11.2011 211101593 23.10.2011 4.11.2011 38. 6262590 14.3.2012 211200371 16.3.2012 15.3.2012 39. 6392419 28.3.2012 211200348 8.3.2012 30.3.2012 40. 6144194 1.3.2012 211200291 2.3.2012 2.3.2012 41. 5835167 25.1.2012 211200229 17.2.2012 30.1.2012 42. 5725420 13.1.2012 211200234 17.2.2012 13.1.2012 43. 5719397 12.1.2012 211200252 23.2.2012 13.1.2012 44. 7654183 13.8.2012 211201099 25.7.2012 16.8.2012 45. 2035187 3.4.2012 211100053 10.3.2012 16.8.2012 46. 7034983 7.6.2012 211201323 13.9.2012 7.6.2012 47. 7327253 7.7.2012 211201332 13.9.2012 7.7.2012 48. 7327338 7.7.2012 211201333 13.9.2012 7.7.2012 49. 6983251 31.5.2012 211201321 13.9.2012 1.6.2012 50. 7036685 7.6.2012 211201322 13.9.2012 7.6.2012 51. 7463138 23.7.2012 211201022 2.7.2012 25.7.2012 52. 7465014 23.7.2012 211201334 13.9.2012 25.7.2012 53. 7620282 8.8.2012 211201336 13.9.2012 9.8.2012 54. 7648647 13.8.2012 211201337 13.9.2012 18.8.2012 55. 6581310 18.4.2012 211200515 2.4.2012 19.4.2012 56. 6838986 16.5.2012 301200530 11.5.2012 19.4.2012 57. 7462942 23.7.2012 211201023 2.7.2012 25.7.2012 58. 7428635 18.7.2012 211200991 28.6.2012 20.7.2012 8. Referring to the aforesaid chart, learned counsel for the revenue submits, while the date of presentation of goods is mentioned in the 6th column of the aforesaid chart, the date of clearance of the goods for home consumption is mentioned in the 3rd column of that chart while the date of the issue of ‘Certificate of Origin’ is mentioned in the 5th column of the chart. Referring to these dates, he submits, admittedly many of the consignments of goods were cleared by the assessee for home consumption much before the date of issuance of the ‘Certificate of Origin’. He therefore submits that such an amendment is clearly impermissible under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, assessee cannot claim refund of custom duty paid. For ready reference Section 149 of the Act is quoted below: “Section 149. Amendment of documents.—Save as otherwise provided in Sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the customs house to be amended: Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorised to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It has therefore been submitted that only course open to the assessee was to have delayed the clearance of goods for home consumption till it had obtained the ‘Certificate of Origin’ from the designated authority in the Republic of Korea. Having once obtained the clearance of goods, there did not remain an option with the assessee to obtain amendment of the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ or to seek refund of duty paid at the time of obtaining clearance of the goods for home consumption. 10. Responding to the above, Sri M.P. Devnath, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the argument being advanced by learned counsel for the revenue is wholly misconceived inasmuch as Section 149 of the Act is a duty payment provision i.e. part of the machinery provision to give effect to the charging section of the Act to provide for payment of duty on any goods brought inside the territory of India for home consumption while the present case arises under exemption provisions under Section 25 of the Act. 11. According to him admittedly, there is a bilateral treaty between the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea which provides for exemption of customs duty, amongst others on the goods imported by the assessee here. Then he relies on Section 25 of the Act to submit, though the goods in question were exigible to customs duty, at the same time the Central Government was competent to grant exemption from payment of customs duty on such goods, generally, either absolutely or subject to conditions that may be fulfilled either before or after clearance of imported goods for home consumption. Further, such conditions could be specified by way of notification. For ready reference provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act are quoted below : “Section 25 : Power to grant exemption from duty—(1) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon.” 12. It has then been stated that the Central Government had in exercise of powers vested under Section 25(1) of the Act issued general exemption notification No. 151 of 2009 dated 31.12.2009. A bare perusal of the notification demonstrates that the goods specified thereunder had been made exempt from payment of duty liability subject to the importer (i.e. the assessee in this case), proving to the satisfaction of the designated custom authority that the goods in respect of which the benefit of exemption had been claimed originated from the Republic of Korea. 13. Further, the said notification made it clear that the fact of the imported goods having originated from the Republic of Korea was required to be established in accordance with the provision of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Rules). 14. It may also be noted that the Tariff Rules have been framed under Section 5(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in pursuance of or in view of the trade treaty entered into between the Republic of India and Republic of Korea providing, amongst others exemption for payment of goods imported by the assessee in the present case. For ready reference provisions of Section 5(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is quoted below: “Section 5. Levy of a lower rate of duty under a trade agreement.—(1) Where under a trade agreement between the Government of India and the Government of a foreign country or territory, duty at a rate lower than that specified in the First Schedule is to be charged on articles which are the produce or manufacture of such foreign country or territory, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for determining if any article is the produce or manufacture of such foreign country or territory and for requiring the owner to make a claim at the time of importation, supported by such evidence as may be prescribed in the said rules, for assessment at the appropriate lower rate under such Agreement.” 15. Learned counsel for the assessee has then taken us to the Tariff Rules as notified by custom notification No. 187 of 2009 dated 31.12.2009 which have also been referred to in the exemption notification No. 151 of 2009. Learned counsel for the assessee has then taken us to the Tariff Rules as notified by custom notification No. 187 of 2009 dated 31.12.2009 which have also been referred to in the exemption notification No. 151 of 2009. Rule 15 of the Tariff Rules provides for ‘Certificate of Origin’. It reads: “15. Certificate of origin—The goods eligible for preferential treatment under the agreement shall be supported by a Certificate of Origin issued by an authority designated by the Government of the exporting State party and notified to the other State party as specified in the Annexure-IV to the rules and in accordance with the detailed operational certification procedures for implementation of these rules as specified in Annexure-III to the rules and in the format specified in the Annexure-V to the rules.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Annexure-III to the Tariff Rules provides for the “Procedure regarding claim of preferential tariff treatment and ‘Certificate of Origin’ goods under the agreement”. Para 3(4) of Annexure-III to the Tariff Rules reads as under : “3. Issuance of Certificate of Origin : (1).... (a)...... (b)...... (2)..... (3)..... (4) The Certificate of Origin shall be issued by the relevant Issuing Authorities at the time of exportation, or within seven working days from the date of shipment whenever the goods to be exported can be considered originating in that State party: Provided that, under exceptional cases, where the Certificate of Origin has not been issued at the time of exportation or within seven working days from the date of shipment due to involuntary errors or omissions or due to any other valid reasons, such Certificate of Origin may be issued retrospectively and shall bear the words “ISSUED RETROSPECTIVELY” in Remarks box of the Certificate of Origin: Provided further that, such issuance shall not be later than one year from the date of shipment of the goods. (emphasis supplied) 17. Relying on para 3(4) of the Annexure-III to the Tariff Rules, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in view of the same, it was wholly legal, permissible and proper for the assessee to have sought amendment of the ‘Bills of Entry’ on the basis of ‘Certificate of Origin’ for the purpose of claiming exemption from customs duty under Section 25 of the Act. 18. According to him, there is no conflict between Section 25 and Section 149 of the Act. The said provisions operate in different circumstances. 18. According to him, there is no conflict between Section 25 and Section 149 of the Act. The said provisions operate in different circumstances. Therefore, the provision of Section 149 cannot be invoked by the revenue to deprive the assessee on exemption claimed under Section 25 of the Act. 19. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we find that on one hand Section 149 of the Act does clearly provide for a scheme wherein though the ‘Bill of Entry’ may be amended after clearance of the goods for home consumption yet, such amendment may be made only on the basis of documentary evidence that may have been in existence at the time when the goods were so cleared and not on the basis of any document prepared thereafter. The section is thus plain and very clear in its language and does not admit of any doubt that the subject ‘Bills of Entry’ once cleared against payment of duty, cannot be amended to any extent except on the strength document pre-existing from before the date of clearance of that ‘Bill of Entry’. 20. If the aforesaid section is to be applied to the facts of the present case, certainly there is no doubt that the amendment to the ‘Bills of Entry’ had to be confined only to such instances out of the 58 subject ‘Bills of Entry’ extracted in the chart above, where the ‘Certificate of Origin’ had been issued on a date prior to the date when the peculiar subject ‘Bill of Entry’ was cleared by the custom authorities. 21. However, Section 149 does not express the complete intent of the Act. Section 25 of the Act provides for exemption for payment of custom duty. Under that section, the Central Government is enabled to grant exemption from custom duty to any goods generally, either absolutely or subject to condition as may be specified in the notification. By very nature, Section 25, therefore, becomes an exception to Section 12 of the Act that creates levy of custom duty on goods that may be imported to or exported from India. 22. We may note, in Topman Exports v. CIT, (2012) 3 SCC 593 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the deduction claimed under section 80 HHC read with Section 28 of the Act observed as below: “39. 22. We may note, in Topman Exports v. CIT, (2012) 3 SCC 593 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the deduction claimed under section 80 HHC read with Section 28 of the Act observed as below: “39. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used in Explanation (baa) to Section 80-HHC read with the words used in clauses (iii-d) and (iii-e) of Section 28, the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Section 80-HHC on export profits, the benefit of such deduction cannot be denied to the assessee”. 23. Then, recently, in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 7 SCC 421 , while dealing with issue of expenditure claimed to earn exempt income the Supreme Court applied the rule of literal reading of fiscal statute and held: 27. We do not see how the aforesaid principle of law in K.P. Varghese [K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 293 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 ] can assist the assessee in the present case. The literal meaning of Section 14-A, far from giving rise to any absurdity, appears to be wholly consistent with the scheme of the Act and the object/purpose of levy of tax on income. Therefore, the well-entrenched principle of interpretation that where the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to principles of interpretation other than the literal view will apply. In this regard, the view expressed by this Court in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, (2014) 6 SCC 444 ] may be usefully noticed below: (SCC p. 456, para 31) “31. ... the language of a taxing statute should ordinarily be read and understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation. A taxing statute should be strictly construed; common sense approach, equity, logic, ethics and morality have no role to play. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied; one can only look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less.” 28. A taxing statute should be strictly construed; common sense approach, equity, logic, ethics and morality have no role to play. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied; one can only look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less.” 28. A similar view is to be found in CIT v. Tara Agencies [CIT v. Tara Agencies, (2007) 6 SCC 429 : (2007) 292 ITR 444 ] wherein this Court had concluded that: (SCC p. 447, para 62 : ITR p. 464, para 69) “62. Therefore, the legal position seems to be clear and consistent that it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to interpret the statute as it is. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into a statute which the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated.” 29. The oft-quoted observations of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64] may also be noticed at this juncture. On the question arising, the learned Judge had observed that: (KB p. 71) “... in a taxing [statute] one has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.” (emphasis supplied) 24. In the context of the Customs Act, we find Section 149 of the Act appears to be a provision to give effect the charge of duty created under Section 12 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is an exception to the aforesaid scheme. It would be wholly illogical to apply Section 149 of the Act with all its rigor to goods that are exempt from payment of customs duty under Section 25 of the Act. That exemption from custom duty has been made subject only to a notification issued by the Central Government that may grant exemption either absolutely or subject to condition/s so notified. 25. Here it is very significant to note, while granting exemption the Central Government has the power to exempt generally any goods from payment of custom duty subject to such condition/s as may be notified. 25. Here it is very significant to note, while granting exemption the Central Government has the power to exempt generally any goods from payment of custom duty subject to such condition/s as may be notified. However, in view of clear language of Section 25 of the Act such condition/s may be fulfilled either before or after clearance of the goods. That being the provision of the Act itself, the consequential delegated legislation namely exemption notification and the Tariff Rules have to be read and understood consistent with this unambiguous legislative intent. 26. Thus, the Tariff Rules do not conflict with Section 149 of the Act. While Section 149 is a machinery provision in aid of duty levy/payment provision, the Tariff Rules and the exemption notification No. 151 have been framed under Section 25 of the Act read with Section 5(1) of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. The Tariff Act enables the Central Government to frame rules to determine the question whether any goods are produced in a foreign country with which the Republic of India may have entered into a trade providing for lower rate of duty. 27. Clearly, the Tariff Rules have been framed to regulate the exemption granted under Section 25 of the Act read with exemption notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009. 28. Applying the rule of literal construction, we find there is no conflict between the charging provision of which Section 149 is a part and the exemption provision of which the Tariff Rules are a part and which functions as an exception to the charging section. By virtue of Section 25 of the Act, Tariff Rules apply to regulate the exception created by notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009, issued under Section 25 of the Act. 29. Thus, we find that Tariff Rules apply because there pre-exists duty liability on the goods in question. Unless there pre-existed such duty liability, there would never have arisen an occasion to grant exemption therefrom. However, the exemption granted being subject to conditions, the Tariff Rules seek to provide and regulate the conditions for grant of such exemption in accordance/terms of Section 25 of the Act and exemption notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009. 30. In the instant case, the goods in question chiefly LCD panel were clearly exigible to payment of custom duty. However, the exemption granted being subject to conditions, the Tariff Rules seek to provide and regulate the conditions for grant of such exemption in accordance/terms of Section 25 of the Act and exemption notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009. 30. In the instant case, the goods in question chiefly LCD panel were clearly exigible to payment of custom duty. Thus, but for a notification being issued by the Central Government under Section 25 of the Act the same could be cleared for home consumption only against duty payment. For that reason alone, at the time of the obtaining clearance of the subject ‘Bills of Entry’, duty payment was required to be made by the assessee. 31. However, at the same time, it is undisputed that at the time when the goods were so cleared for consumption into the country, the Central Government had issued Notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009 under Section 25(1) of the Act to provide for a general exemption from payment of custom duty on specified goods mentioned in the table appended to that notification subject to the condition that those goods be imported from Republic of Korea in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Rules. Thus, the exemption from duty could be claimed by the assessee upon fulfillment of the condition that the goods had been imported in accordance with the Tariff Rules. As to the Tariff Rules, it is seen, under Rule 15 of the Tariff Rules a ‘Certificate of Origin’ was required to have been issued by the designated authority in the Republic of Korea in accordance with the detailed operational certificate procedure for implementation of the Tariff Rules as specified in Annexure-III to the Rule. 32. As to the Tariff Rules, it is seen, under Rule 15 of the Tariff Rules a ‘Certificate of Origin’ was required to have been issued by the designated authority in the Republic of Korea in accordance with the detailed operational certificate procedure for implementation of the Tariff Rules as specified in Annexure-III to the Rule. 32. Paragraph 3 (4) of Annexure-III to the aforesaid Tariff Rules (as has been extracted above), clearly provided that in the first instance the condition of ‘Certificate of Origin’ being in existence at the time goods were cleared for home consumption may be fulfilled either at the time of exportation of goods from Korea or even seven working days therefrom provided that in exceptional cases i.e. second instance, where such ‘Certificate of Origin’ could not be issued after seven days from the date of shipment either due to (i) involuntary errors or (ii) omissions or (iii) any other valid reasons, the said requirement may be relaxed subject to a further (two) conditions that (a) the words ‘Issued Retrospectively’ be marked on such ‘Certificate of Origin’ and (b) such a ‘Certificate of Origin’ be necessarily issued not later than one year from the date of shipment of the goods. 33. Therefore, in our opinion exemption from payment of custom duty had been generally granted to the goods specified in the table of Notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009, conditionally. On this count there is no dispute between the parties that the goods in question are such as are covered by the exemption notification. 34. Then as to the entitlement to exemption claimed by the assessee, in the facts of the present case we find that in certain instances (out of 58 Bills of Entry) the ‘Certificate of Origin’ had been issued by the designated authority prior to the goods being cleared for home consumption while in others the ‘Certificate of Origin’ had been issued after that date. However, this may not be decisive of the issue involved in the present case. Apparently, the chart relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue has been prepared by the revenue authorities in the backdrop of their understanding that provisions of Section 149 of the Act govern the claim made by the assessee. However, this may not be decisive of the issue involved in the present case. Apparently, the chart relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue has been prepared by the revenue authorities in the backdrop of their understanding that provisions of Section 149 of the Act govern the claim made by the assessee. According to that understanding Section 149 of the Act prescribes that the ‘Bills of Entry’ may be amended only on the strength of the document/s existing on the date of clearance of the goods for home consumption. 35. According to us, that criteria is not valid or relevant to resolve the dispute involved in the present case. 36. As we have already noted above, the scheme of Section 25 of the Act granting exemption exists by way of an exception to the general scheme of duty payment (which for the present purpose of considering the argument raised by the revenue, we confine to Section 12 and Section 149 of the Act). The latter provisions being part of scheme of levy of duty would not govern the claim of exemption raised in the present case. 37. For the purpose of the deciding the questions raised in the present appeal it needs to be examined whether the assessee had complied with the condition/s for grant of exemption under Section 25 of the Act read with exemption notification and the Tariff Rules i.e. whether the conditions prescribed accordance with Section 25 of the Act read with Notification No. 151 dated 31.12.2009 read alongwith Tariff Rules had been complied with by the assessee within time prescribed. 38. We find in the first place, Section 25 of the Act itself contemplated that the conditions that may be imposed by the Central Government while issuing an exemption notification may be fulfilled either before or after clearance of the goods. That being the intent of the parent legislation, there could be no denial to the claim made by the assessee that as a rule it was entitled to fulfill the condition for grant of exemption even after the goods had been cleared for home consumption. Thus even in absence of Annexure-III to the Tariff Rules, it may have been open to the assessee to claim exemption from payment of custom duty. 39. Thus even in absence of Annexure-III to the Tariff Rules, it may have been open to the assessee to claim exemption from payment of custom duty. 39. However, that apart in the instant case, by virtue of Rule 15 of the Tariff Rules, the Central Government has further acted in concert and in conformity with the spirit of Section 25 of the Act in so far as the Tariff Rules provide for detailed operational certification procedure for implementation of the Rules as mentioned in Annexure-III thereto. If, there was any doubt as to the manner of issuance of ‘Certificate of Origin’ and its effect, the same has been made clear in paragraph 3 of Annexure-III. Sub paragraph 4 of paragraph 3 clearly provides that the ‘Certificate of Origin’ may be issued subsequent to the shipment of goods from the country on origin/Republic of Korea, upto a period of one year from the date of shipment of goods. However, the said issuance of ‘Certificate of Origin’ has been further regulated by the Tariff Rules whereby specific stipulations have been incorporated to be complied by the assessee such as ‘Certificate of Origin’ may be issued after seven days but within one year from the date of shipment of goods only if it could not be issued within seven day period due to involuntary errors or omissions or other valid reasons. 40. Thus, on one hand period of time to issue ‘Certificate of Origin’ has been extended in favour of the assessee and at the same time the assessee has been burdened to prove existence of exceptional circumstances to accept a ‘Certificate of Origin’ issued in such extended time. Also, the revenue authorities have to be satisfied as to existence of such circumstances before the exemption may be allowed. 41. In the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee clearly claimed to have fulfilled the condition with respect to issue of ‘Certificate of Origin’ for grant of exemption, subsequently, that is after clearance of the goods for home consumption. In view of the discussion made above, such a stand is clearly consistent with and therefore permissible to be taken by the assessee by virtue of clear language of Section 25(1) of the Act and the exemption notification and Tariff Rules proved by the Central Government. 42. In view of the discussion made above, such a stand is clearly consistent with and therefore permissible to be taken by the assessee by virtue of clear language of Section 25(1) of the Act and the exemption notification and Tariff Rules proved by the Central Government. 42. Then for that exemption to be actually granted to the assessee, it must, in terms of notification number 151 dated 31.12.2009 prove to the satisfaction of the relevant custom authority that the goods had originated from the Republic of Korea. The manner of proof is required to be given by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Rules, this origin being the clear language of the aforesaid notification itself. 43. The manner of proof provided by the Tariff Rules, as discussed above, by virtue of Rule 15 read with paragraph 3(4) of Annexure-III of the Tariff Rules allows the assessee to prove this fact by obtaining the ‘Certificate of Origin’ not later than one year from the date of shipment of goods. Not only that, in cases where the ‘Certificate of Origin’ had been issued after seven days but upto one year from the date of shipment, the assessee is further burdened to explain the reason for the same-either being on account of involuntary errors or omissions or any other valid reasons and any other or further requirement that the revenue may claim under the Tariff Rules. 44. Once the assessee establishes the aforesaid facts, it would be entitled to claim exemption. The stipulation of Section 149 of the Act or any other provisions incorporated under the Act or the Rules for compliance of duty payment may not stand in the way of the assessee to claim exemption under Section 25 of the Act. 45. For the reasons stated above, we answer question Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The revenue authorities shall now proceed in accordance with the observations made above. 46. The instant appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.