https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97549 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellants. The classification of the imported goods under sub-heading 8905.10 was upheld, granting them the benefit of Notification No. 180/90. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts or misdeclaration, leading to the rejection of the duty demand and penalty proposed by the Customs Department. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was deemed unwarranted due to the appellants' full disclosure of relevant information to the authorities. en-us Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:08:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97549 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellants. The classification of the imported goods under sub-heading 8905.10 was upheld, granting them the benefit of Notification No. 180/90. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts or misdeclaration, leading to the rejection of the duty demand and penalty proposed by the Customs Department. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was deemed unwarranted due to the appellants' full disclosure of relevant information to the authorities. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97549