https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97170 Duty under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. could be denied only if the importer failed to satisfy the notification's conditions at import, but any demand raised by invoking the extended limitation period required the department to show evidence that Modvat credit had actually been taken and that the conditions for longer limitation were met. On the stated facts, the record indicated an omission by the assessing officer rather than suppression, misstatement, or similar conduct by the importer, and there was no proof that Modvat credit had been availed. The department could not shift to the importer the burden of proving a fact it was required to establish, so the demand was unsustainable and the duty orders were set aside. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:32:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97170 Duty under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. could be denied only if the importer failed to satisfy the notification's conditions at import, but any demand raised by invoking the extended limitation period required the department to show evidence that Modvat credit had actually been taken and that the conditions for longer limitation were met. On the stated facts, the record indicated an omission by the assessing officer rather than suppression, misstatement, or similar conduct by the importer, and there was no proof that Modvat credit had been availed. The department could not shift to the importer the burden of proving a fact it was required to establish, so the demand was unsustainable and the duty orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97170