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" ?
CESTAT held that Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
CESTAT held that Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
