Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 extended period of limitation under the Customs law was invokable on the basis of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, and whether the duty demand, interest and penalty were time barred.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the importer had deliberately withheld material facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal found that during the relevant import period the legal position on includibility of royalty or licence fee in the assessable value was unsettled, with some decisions supporting the assessee and others supporting the Revenue. In that setting, the Court held that mere non-disclosure of the licence fee could not, by itself, establish wilful suppression. The burden to justify the extended period remained on the Revenue, and the existence of a doubtful legal position negatived the allegation of deliberate evasion.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was rightly held to be time barred, and the conclusion was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period can be invoked only on proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty; where the law is debatable or unsettled and the material facts are not shown to have been concealed with such intent, the demand is barred by limitation.