Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the duty demands were barred by limitation and whether Rule 9(2) or Rule 10A could be invoked instead of Rule 10.
Analysis: The stocks had been disclosed and verified, the clearances were made under physical control after submission and certification of AR 1 forms, and no wilful suppression of facts, wrongful declaration, or surreptitious removal was established. On those facts, the case fell, at the highest, within error or mis-construction attracting Rule 10. Since clearances were under physical control, the applicable period was three months. Rule 9(2) was not available, and Rule 10A could not be used where the specific provision in Rule 10 governed the field.
Conclusion: The duty demands were time-barred and could not be sustained under Rule 9(2) or Rule 10A.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on limitation, and the confirmed demands were quashed with consequential refund relief where duty had been paid.
Ratio Decidendi: Where removals are under physical control and no wilful suppression or deliberate misdeclaration is established, the demand must be raised within the period prescribed by the specific limitation rule, and the residuary provision cannot be invoked to extend time.