Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CESTAT's finding that the assessee did not willfully suppress material facts to invoke the proviso to s.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for an extended limitation period. The court concluded that both Revenue and the assessee had knowledge of the draw-warping activities, and the assessee's reliance on a notification did not amount to fraud, misrepresentation or willful concealment. Consequently, the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation was time-barred, and the CESTAT correctly set aside demands predicated on the extended period; substantial questions of law were answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CESTAT's finding that the assessee did not willfully suppress material facts to invoke the proviso to s.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for an extended limitation period. The court concluded that both Revenue and the assessee had knowledge of the draw-warping activities, and the assessee's reliance on a notification did not amount to fraud, misrepresentation or willful concealment. Consequently, the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation was time-barred, and the CESTAT correctly set aside demands predicated on the extended period; substantial questions of law were answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
