https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106037 The customs demand could not be sustained on the extended limitation period because the department produced no supporting shipping bill or other material showing suppression or misstatement by the importer, and the omission to verify the exemption condition was treated as a departmental lapse. The department also failed to prove that Modvat credit had in fact been availed, so denial of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. for alleged breach of the non-availment condition was unsustainable. The burden to justify the extended period and to establish breach of the conditional exemption remained on the department, and that burden was not discharged. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:13:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106037 The customs demand could not be sustained on the extended limitation period because the department produced no supporting shipping bill or other material showing suppression or misstatement by the importer, and the omission to verify the exemption condition was treated as a departmental lapse. The department also failed to prove that Modvat credit had in fact been availed, so denial of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. for alleged breach of the non-availment condition was unsustainable. The burden to justify the extended period and to establish breach of the conditional exemption remained on the department, and that burden was not discharged. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106037