https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233797 Demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the record did not show service of the show cause notice and there was no specific allegation or evidence of suppression to justify the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also held that denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. required affirmative proof that the assessee had availed MODVAT/Cenvat credit on inputs used in exported goods; in the absence of such material, the alleged disqualification was not established. On both grounds, the demand, confiscation and penalty failed and the assessee obtained consequential relief. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2013 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233797 Demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the record did not show service of the show cause notice and there was no specific allegation or evidence of suppression to justify the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also held that denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. required affirmative proof that the assessee had availed MODVAT/Cenvat credit on inputs used in exported goods; in the absence of such material, the alleged disqualification was not established. On both grounds, the demand, confiscation and penalty failed and the assessee obtained consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233797