https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93428 Denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus could not be sustained where the department failed to establish that Modvat credit had actually been availed on inputs used in the exported goods; a mere possibility of wrongful availment was insufficient and the burden lay on the department to prove non-compliance with the notification condition. The demand also failed because the extended period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked on bare allegations of suppression or misstatement without disclosing the factual basis, and the alternative plea of provisional assessment did not save a premature notice. The impugned order was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh if legally permissible. en-us Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93428 Denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus could not be sustained where the department failed to establish that Modvat credit had actually been availed on inputs used in the exported goods; a mere possibility of wrongful availment was insufficient and the burden lay on the department to prove non-compliance with the notification condition. The demand also failed because the extended period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked on bare allegations of suppression or misstatement without disclosing the factual basis, and the alternative plea of provisional assessment did not save a premature notice. The impugned order was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh if legally permissible. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93428