https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245424 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the importer, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant, who imported goods under a claim of benefit of a specific notification using DEPB scrip purchased from a third party, was not found to be involved in the fraudulent actions leading to the cancellation of the DEPB scrip. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation should not be applied as there was no evidence of collusion or aiding in the fraud by the appellant. The demand was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:20:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245424 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the importer, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant, who imported goods under a claim of benefit of a specific notification using DEPB scrip purchased from a third party, was not found to be involved in the fraudulent actions leading to the cancellation of the DEPB scrip. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation should not be applied as there was no evidence of collusion or aiding in the fraud by the appellant. The demand was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245424