Limitation and project import exemption objections failed as the doctrine of merger and unmet import conditions sustained the duty demand.

Limitation objections were treated as unavailable because the earlier round of litigation had attained finality, no challenge had been made to the later show cause notice, and the subsequent de novo adjudication proceeded in accordance with prior directions under the doctrine of merger. On merits, the project contract covered import of capital goods, but two items remained unimported and the appellant could not claim concurrent exemption contrary to the project import framework. The differential duty demand was therefore sustained, with the challenge failing on both limitation and merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was unsustainable on the grounds of limitation and invalidity of the show cause notice, and whether the demand of differential duty on the imported goods was justified on merits.

Analysis: The prior round of litigation had attained finality and the earlier order had proceeded without any challenge to the subsequent show cause notice. The objection that the notice was time-barred was therefore not available at this stage. The earlier proceedings had also merged into the later order by operation of the doctrine of merger, and the de novo adjudication followed the directions already issued. On merits, the facts were not in dispute that the project contract covered the import of capital goods, but two items remained unimported and the appellant could not claim concurrent exemption benefit contrary to the project import framework. The differential duty demand was therefore sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order failed both on limitation and on merits, and the duty demand was upheld.

---