TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty could be sustained when exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. had already been granted, but the department later alleged contravention of the notification conditions without citing evidence of Modvat credit having been availed and without setting out grounds for invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Once the benefit of exemption had been extended and the goods cleared, a later demand required material to establish breach of the relevant condition. The notice did not cite evidence supporting the allegation that Modvat credit had been taken, nor did it disclose facts attracting the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of proof of contravention and of grounds justifying the extended limitation period, the duty demand could not be sustained. The penalty imposed under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 also had no foundation once the demand itself failed.
Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was vacated because the department failed to establish breach of the exemption condition and failed to justify recourse to the extended period.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption has already been granted, a subsequent demand denying the benefit must be supported by evidence of breach of the exemption condition and, if issued beyond the normal period, by facts justifying invocation of the extended limitation period; otherwise the demand and consequential penalty cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
