https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113755 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, waiving the deposit of duty and penalty and staying their recovery. It held that the demand was time-barred under Section 28(1) due to the absence of any act or omission justifying the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the appellant should have exercised proper care before the license transfer, emphasizing that the transfer was permitted by the licensing authority. This decision aligned with previous Tribunal rulings and ensured fairness and adherence to legal limitations in duty recovery proceedings. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2012 12:50:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113755 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, waiving the deposit of duty and penalty and staying their recovery. It held that the demand was time-barred under Section 28(1) due to the absence of any act or omission justifying the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the appellant should have exercised proper care before the license transfer, emphasizing that the transfer was permitted by the licensing authority. This decision aligned with previous Tribunal rulings and ensured fairness and adherence to legal limitations in duty recovery proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113755