https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265328 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, a 100% EOU, in a dispute over duty exemption for goods procured for manufacturing. The duty demand was set aside, determining it should be recoverable from the importer, not the respondent, as the duty exemption notification did not cover the additional duty under the Finance Act, 1999. The Tribunal held that the duty should have been recovered from the importer based on precedents and that the demand from the respondent was time-barred. The extended limitation period for duty demand was deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265328 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, a 100% EOU, in a dispute over duty exemption for goods procured for manufacturing. The duty demand was set aside, determining it should be recoverable from the importer, not the respondent, as the duty exemption notification did not cover the additional duty under the Finance Act, 1999. The Tribunal held that the duty should have been recovered from the importer based on precedents and that the demand from the respondent was time-barred. The extended limitation period for duty demand was deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265328