https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241321 Duty exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. could not be denied merely because imported capital goods were installed after the stipulated period where they were received, installed and used for export-oriented manufacture and the export objective was achieved. The delay was treated as a procedural lapse capable of condonation, absent any allegation of diversion or failure to fulfil export obligation. The demand was also held time-barred because the record showed no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked on a mere omission to seek extension. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:41:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241321 Duty exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. could not be denied merely because imported capital goods were installed after the stipulated period where they were received, installed and used for export-oriented manufacture and the export objective was achieved. The delay was treated as a procedural lapse capable of condonation, absent any allegation of diversion or failure to fulfil export obligation. The demand was also held time-barred because the record showed no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked on a mere omission to seek extension. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241321