All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act could not be invoked. The show-cause notice, issued beyond the one-year period for the April 2002-August 2003 period, failed to aver specifically which default under the proviso (collusion, wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty) was alleged, and the adjudicating authority did not establish those ingredients against the appellant. Because the Revenue bore the burden of proving dishonest intent and such allegations were absent, the demand falling within the extended period is not maintainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act could not be invoked. The show-cause notice, issued beyond the one-year period for the April 2002-August 2003 period, failed to aver specifically which default under the proviso (collusion, wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty) was alleged, and the adjudicating authority did not establish those ingredients against the appellant. Because the Revenue bore the burden of proving dishonest intent and such allegations were absent, the demand falling within the extended period is not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
