https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220512 The SC held that mere non-payment of customs duty on furnace oil imports does not constitute collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under the proviso. The court distinguished between inadvertent non-payment (six months limitation) and deliberate default (five years limitation), emphasizing that deliberate intent to escape duty payment must be proven by Revenue. Since the show cause notice lacked specific averments of mala fide conduct and no willful default was established, the extended limitation period was inapplicable. The demand and penalty were barred by limitation, ruling in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 12:51:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220512 The SC held that mere non-payment of customs duty on furnace oil imports does not constitute collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under the proviso. The court distinguished between inadvertent non-payment (six months limitation) and deliberate default (five years limitation), emphasizing that deliberate intent to escape duty payment must be proven by Revenue. Since the show cause notice lacked specific averments of mala fide conduct and no willful default was established, the extended limitation period was inapplicable. The demand and penalty were barred by limitation, ruling in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220512