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 demand could be sustained by invoking the extended limitation period on the footing of wilful suppression or misrepresentation, and whether the demand was barred by time.
Analysis: The respondents had applied for and obtained separate base-clearance approvals for each unit from the Co-ordinating Assistant Collector, and the department had accepted the classification lists as well as the RT-12 returns without objection. The record showed that the departmental understanding of the exemption notification was itself uncertain, and the contemporaneous approvals and returns negatived any inference of deliberate concealment. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary to invoke the extended period under Rule 10 were not established, and the demand raised beyond the normal period could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the invocation of the extended period was not justified.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order setting aside the demand on limitation was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere availment of duty relief in a manner later disputed by the department does not justify the extended limitation period unless wilful suppression or deliberate misstatement is proved, especially where the department had contemporaneously approved the relevant declarations and returns.